Deputy President William Ruto has opposed a case seeking his removal from office.
In his preliminary objection, the deputy president through lawyer Elius Mutuma argues that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit, as the same seek orders for removal of the Deputy President from office in a manner that contravenes Articles 150 as read with Articles 144 and 145 of the Constitution.
“The suit herein fails the test of justiciability and ripeness as the applicant is inviting the court to embark on an academic exercise which is a waste of precious and scarce judicial time,” he argues.
Ruto argues that the case is incompetent and incurably defective both in form and in substance and is therefore untenable.
He adds that the case does not raise any triable issues for determination in that it has not disclosed any specific acts that are manifestly in breach of the law to warrant judicial intervention.
“The suit is hopelessly and haplessly bad and fatally deficient in both form and substance,” reads court papers.
In the case, Michael Kirungia filed a case seeking DP Ruto’s removal from office on grounds that he is not performing his constitutional duties.
He further accused the deputy president of gross misconduct, claiming he was attacking the government that he serves.
Kurungia wants the court to restrain the DP from using his office and his residential home in conducting meetings of the United Democratic Alliance until the case is heard and determined.