Nairobi — The government has asked the High Court in Nairobi to throw out a case challenging the use of State House for political engagements, insisting the petition does not meet the legal threshold required for constitutional matters.
In its response, the State argues that the case lacks clarity and fails to demonstrate any violation of the Constitution. Lawyers representing the government describe the petition as baseless and an improper use of the judicial process.
The petition was filed by lawyer Lempaa Suyianka, who questions the legality of hosting political figures at State House. He claims the move amounts to the use of public facilities and resources for partisan interests, particularly those linked to the ruling party.
According to court documents, the petitioner is seeking a declaration that such meetings are unconstitutional, alongside orders compelling the political party involved to refund public funds allegedly used during the events. He also wants a permanent ban on political activities being held at State House and State lodges.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
In opposing the case, the government maintains that the President, William Ruto, acted within the law. It points to constitutional provisions that outline the Head of State's role in promoting national unity, coordinating government affairs, and engaging with leaders across the political spectrum.
The State further argues that Kenya's democratic framework allows for political interaction and association, and that such engagements cannot automatically be classified as unconstitutional.
The respondents also fault the petition for failing to clearly outline which constitutional rights were infringed and how. They rely on past judicial decisions that require constitutional petitions to precisely state the alleged violations and provide supporting evidence.
Additionally, the government invokes presidential immunity, arguing that the Constitution shields the Head of State from civil proceedings for actions carried out in the course of official duties.
The case is anchored on claims that several meetings held at State House between April 2025 and February 2026 were political in nature rather than official government functions. The petitioner alleges that public resources -- including staff, security, and facilities -- were used without transparency or reimbursement.
However, the government dismisses these claims, maintaining that State House remains a legitimate venue for official engagements that may include political leaders as part of broader governance and unity-building efforts.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The State is now seeking to have the case dismissed with costs, arguing that it raises no substantive constitutional issues.
The High Court is expected to determine whether the petition will proceed to full hearing or be struck out at a preliminary stage.
