Gachoka questions court over change in Safaricom shares case
National
By
Mike Kihaki
| Jun 17, 2026
Businessman Tony Gachoka and nine other petitioners have written to the President of the Court of Appeal seeking clarification over what they term as an unusual alteration and fast-tracking of a State application relating to the proposed sale of government shares in Safaricom PLC.
In a letter addressed to the President of the Court of Appeal through the Deputy Registrar, advocate Lempaa Suiyanla of Mugeria, Lempaa and Kariuki Advocates raised concerns over the handling of Court of Appeal Civil Application No. E261 of 2026, in which the Cabinet Secretary for the National Treasury and Economic Planning and five others are seeking to overturn conservatory orders that blocked the national government from selling Safaricom shares.
The application stems from a ruling by High Court judges Francis Gikonyo, Roselyne Aburili and T.W. Ouya delivered on May 18, 2026.
According to the lawyers, parties were initially served with a hearing notice indicating that the State’s application under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules would be heard on June 29, 2026.
However, they say they were later informed of a sudden change. “On June 2026, at the back of unusual efficiency at the Registry, the parties were served with a hearing notice indicating that the application had been fixed for hearing on June 24,” the letter states.
READ MORE
Mwalimu Sacco taps NCBA to rev up salary processing
Why firms are seeking spaces that drive impact, not just transactions
Ruto calls for equal partnerships with wealthy nations, says era of aid is over
Report shows global energy transition slows as Kenya leads Africa gains
Why the right car battery is no longer just about engine size
Why modern tech is key to fixing insurance gaps
Engineers challenged on road designs
Tax Bill rebellion: Why MPs have rejected Ruto's proposals
The advocates further note that during proceedings before the High Court on June 9, 2026, parties informed the court that the Court of Appeal matter had already been scheduled for June 29 and obtained a separate slot for submissions in Petition No. E051 of 2026 to avoid a scheduling conflict.
They, however, say they were subsequently served with another amended notice advancing the hearing further to June 18 before a three-judge bench constituted by the President of the Court of Appeal.
“It was therefore with considerable surprise that the parties subsequently received an amended hearing notice indicating that the application would instead be heard on June 18 at 9am,” the letter reads.
The petitioners argue that while the court retains authority over its diary, the abrupt changes have created “genuine concern and apprehension” among the parties.
Among the issues they raise are the reasons behind the date changes, the criteria used to fast-track the State’s application, and the absence of what they term as the standard requirement for a case management conference before the matter was set for hearing.
The lawyers also argue that scheduling decisions amount to administrative action and must comply with Article 47 of the Constitution on fair administrative action. They further cite Articles 27 and 50 on equality before the law and the right to a fair hearing.
They are seeking clarification on the circumstances that informed the alteration of the hearing dates from June 29 to June 18, the basis for fast-tracking the application, and why a case management conference was not conducted before listing the matter for hearing.
Additionally, they want the hearing date reverted to June 29, assurances of equal treatment of all litigants, and confirmation that no party is being granted preferential access to the court’s scheduling process.
The petitioners also seek assurances “that there exists no predetermined outcomes in Civil Application No. E261 of 2026 and that the matter shall be determined solely on the law and the merits presented by the parties.”
They emphasize that their request has been made in good faith and with respect for the judiciary, insisting it is aimed at ensuring that justice is both done and seen to be done.