An Eldoret High Court has issued orders suspending all the official sittings of the Uasin Gishu County Assembly.
This is after a case filed before the court challenging the legal composition of the assembly.
Activist Kimutai Kirui filed the case, arguing that following a court’s decision that declared the nomination of 11 MCAs null and void, the assembly is not properly constituted to continue executing its mandate.
Kirui wants the court to halt operations of the assembly until when the 11 MCAs will be replaced.
It is on the basis of the case that the court issued the temporary orders.
“It is hereby ordered that an order be and is hereby issued suspending all official sittings, meetings and deliberations by members of the County Assembly of Uasin Gishu pending hearing and determination of this application,” read part of the order issued by Justice Wananda Anuro dated October 3, 2033.
Respondents
The judge further directed that the application be served within two days and upon being served respondents to file a response within 10 days.
The Clerk of the Uasin Gishu County Assembly and the Speaker have been cited as respondents in the case.
Further, the Independent, Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) has been listed as an interested party.
Mention for the case is set for October 18, 2023.
However, despite the High Court order, the Uasin Gishu County Assembly continued with its operations as usual on Wednesday.
The joint Committee on Land and Physical Planning and Housing and Uban Development held its sixth session inquiry on the construction of a building on a claimed road reserve within Eldoret Municipality Block 6. The sessions have been ongoing since last week.
But it is unclear where the court order had been served to the Assembly Speaker and Clerk who are mandated to effect it.
The High Court in September 2023 upheld a lower court decision that had ruled that nomination of 11 MCAs by UDA was null and void.
In the ruling, the court observed that IEBC used a wrong list when gazzetting the nominated MCAs.
The affected MCAs however filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal.
