P. Ralph

Law| Fulltime Man City fun | Born again Christian |

[P. Ralph @Ralph_lw]

@theyluvmoh Ujaluo 😭😭😭is affecting you

[The Kenya School of Law @SchoolofLawKE]

HELB Loan Applications Now Open

The HELB Loan Portal is open for eligible Kenya School of Law students for the 2025/2026 Academic Year.
Eligible applicants:
• Advocates Training Programme Class of 2026 – ATP Tuition Loan
• Second-Year Paralegal Students – Paralegal Training Loan
📅 Application deadline: 26 June 2026

Eligible students are encouraged to apply early to avoid last-minute challenges.
#KenyaSchoolOfLaw
#HELB
#LegalEducation
#StudentFinance
#EducationFunding
#ApplyNow

[Oraro & Company Advocates @OCOAdvocates]

We are delighted to announce that applications for our 2027 Pupillage Program are now open.

Read more: https://t.co/Ub0Mp76xaG

#2027PupillageProgram #FutureLawyers #PupillageOpportunity

[Ndong@Conslaw @Ndonglaw043]

TRITE LAW FROM KENYAN CASE LAW: You do not need a New Verifying Affidavit for an Amended Plaint. ✅️

[P. Ralph @Ralph_lw]

@ayagamax @Davidkmwenda @MainaMichaelM08 😂😂🤦🏻

[P. Ralph @Ralph_lw]

@g_chantal7 Naeza Pata akiiz ... Kiny ting'na 🥹

[Kenson Mutethia @KensonMutethia]

Just this Friday, COA restated the trite law that:
1. A trial court is not bound to grant an adjournment unless there's a proper basis.
2. The right to be heard does not avail a litigant who, by his own conduct, declines to participate in the proceedings or seeks to delay them.

[P. Ralph @Ralph_lw]

@wakilinaph 😂😂😂 nkt 🤦🏻
Mzee orals 😂😂

[Nelson Havi SC @NelsonHavi]

The Vetting of Judges and Magistrates Bill, 2027.

“An Act of Parliament to provide for the vetting of Judges and Magistrates after every ten years, for purposes of ensuring suitability to serve on account of competence, behavior and conduct.”

[The Judiciary Kenya @Kenyajudiciary]

Link for Court of Appeal Judgments and Rulings (Civil) delivered on June 12, 2026

https://t.co/tp5FzMDkmT

[P. Ralph @Ralph_lw]

Najua @livin_omanga ako mahali Kwa comment section 😂😂😂

[🗿🇫🇷(🇵🇹🇪🇸🇯🇵🇳🇴) @jhonte_]

such a pretty house for backshots ukiwa umeshikilia sofa, kilio itakua tu johnte don't stop

[Chris Kost @chriskost]

Nairobi needs to shift from trying to solve every mobility challenge with flyovers, wider roads, and elevated highways to investing in fast and reliable public transport.

[P. Ralph @Ralph_lw]

@theyluvmoh 😂😂😂😭 nkt 🫴🏻

[P. Ralph @Ralph_lw]

@PiocheBrio 😂😂😂😂😭

[Faith Odhiambo @FaithOdhiambo8]

Yesterday's High Court judgment on the impeachment of H.E. Rigathi Gachagua raises serious and legitimate questions that our constitutional jurisprudence must grapple with honestly. The three-judge bench found that the Senate violated the former Deputy President's right to a fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution specifically by declining to grant an adjournment when he was unable to attend the proceedings. The court acknowledged that violation, issued a declaratory order and awarded Ksh.50 million in constitutional damages. Yet the bench ultimately upheld the impeachment itself. I respect the court and the constitutional role it plays. But I believe this outcome calls for serious reflection on the coherence of our remedial framework.

The tension in the judgment lies in this, if the Senate's refusal to adjourn was a constitutional infirmity serious enough to warrant a finding of violation and a Ksh.50 million award, then the question that naturally follows is whether that infirmity was capable of tainting the entire removal process. The right to a fair hearing is not procedural decoration. It is a substantive constitutional guarantee, particularly in proceedings that result in the removal of a person from high public office. Courts must therefore grapple carefully with what it means to vindicate a right while simultaneously affirming the outcome that flowed from its violation. It is a difficult balance and I appreciate that the bench was navigating complicated constitutional terrain.

It is instructive to recall the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the landmark 2017 presidential election petition delivered by the then Chief Justice David Maraga. The court, in a 4-2 majority, nullified the presidential election not on the basis that the outcome was necessarily wrong but on the basis that the process through which it was arrived at did not conform to the Constitution and the law. The court found that irregularities and illegalities in the transmission of results had compromised the integrity of the election and that the constitutional standard required more than a plausible result, it required a process that was itself constitutionally compliant. That principle that a flawed process cannot produce a constitutionally valid outcome remains a pillar of our public law.

When we place that 2017 reasoning alongside yesterday's judgment, a legitimate concern emerges. Both cases involved constitutional violations in the course of a high-stakes removal or electoral process. In 2017, the violation of constitutional standards was sufficient to nullify the result entirely. Yesterday, a violation of the right to a fair hearing was found, remedied in damages but the result was preserved. These are not necessarily irreconcilable positions, courts do have discretion in fashioning remedies but the distinction must be clearly reasoned and transparently justified because the precedent being set will govern how future impeachments are conducted and how future courts respond to violations within those processes.

My concern is about the precedent this decision may establish. If a constitutional violation during impeachment proceedings can be remedied by damages without disturbing the outcome, future Parliaments and Senates may not feel the full weight of their constitutional obligations when handling removal proceedings. The court itself noted the urgent need for Parliament to enact a dedicated statutory framework under Article 150 governing the removal of a Deputy President which is a legislative gap that should never have existed this long. That recommendation must not be ignored. A constitutional democracy is built on the integrity of its processes not merely its outcomes. We must ensure that the right to a fair hearing in Kenya remains substantive and not merely symbolic.

[KTN News @KTNNewsKE]

Lawyer Evans Ndong': Once the court found that the right to a fair hearing had been violated, the court had no option but to undo the effect of that impeachment. We may not like Rigathi Gachagua, but we cannot butcher the constitution in the manner the three-judge bench did today.
@thejesserogers
#KTNPrime

[Joshua Malidzo Nyawa @joshuamalidzo]

Good morning members of the registry,

May you not encounter the doctrine of constitutional dilemma!

[P. Ralph @Ralph_lw]

@weak_spell 😂😂😂

[P. Ralph @Ralph_lw]

Hey please 👋🌚