Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President Kanjama has said the Court of Appeal has wide powers to alter the High Court’s ruling on the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, including the ability to reverse findings on both the impeachment outcome and the compensation awarded for violation of fair hearing rights.

Speaking during an interview on June 8, 2026, Kanjama said the appellate court is not limited in its review of the decision delivered by a three-judge High Court bench comprising Justices Erick Ogolla, Anthony Mrima, and Fred Mugambi, which upheld Gachagua’s impeachment by the Senate but also found that his right to a fair hearing was violated.

“The Court of Appeal can alter any aspect of the High Court’s decision,” Kanjama said.

He added that the court could either uphold the impeachment, overturn it, or revise the constitutional damages awarded.

“The Court of Appeal could decide that the right of fair hearing of Gachagua was not violated and even quash the compensation. On the other hand, the Court of Appeal could say those rights were violated and could decide to quash the impeachment and could decide what the consequence,” he said.

High Court ruling on impeachment and compensation

On Monday, June 8, 2026, the High Court upheld the Senate’s decision to impeach Gachagua, finding that the constitutional threshold for impeachment had been met.

At the same time, the court ruled that senators violated his right to a fair hearing after they declined an adjournment sought on medical grounds. The bench awarded him Ksh50 million in constitutional damages, payable by the Senate, to vindicate constitutional rights, restore dignity, and deter future violations.

The judges stated that the impeachment process was valid but procedurally flawed in relation to fair hearing rights.

Court proceedings and absence of Gachagua

Gachagua did not attend the Milimani Law Courts during the ruling and followed proceedings from his home together with his wife, Reverend Dorcas Rigathi, and opposition leaders including Kalonzo Musyoka and Eugene Wamalwa.

His legal representative, Kirinyaga Woman Representative Njeri Maina, said his absence was deliberate.

“Our client was watching from home with his family. It is not mandatory that the client attend. Given that there was propaganda that there could be something planned, we would not want him implicated in anything,” she said.

She added that Gachagua had urged his supporters to remain calm regardless of the outcome of the case.

Appeal process and legal implications

The ruling has triggered legal debate on the scope of parliamentary powers versus constitutional safeguards on fair administrative action.

Kanjama noted that even if the impeachment were quashed on appeal, it would not automatically result in reinstatement of Gachagua to office.

The case is expected to proceed to the Court of Appeal for determination on whether the impeachment process will be upheld, revised, or overturned in light of the constitutional findings on fair hearing rights.