DIG Eliud Lagat loses bid to block case seeking his ouster over Albert Ojwang’s murder
Justice Chacha Mwita overruled a preliminary objection filed by Lagat through his lawyer Cecil Miller that sought to have the petition thrown out arguing that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to preside over the matter.
In a landmark ruling, the Deputy Inspector General of the Kenya Police Service (KPS) Eliud Lagat has suffered a major legal setback after the High Court dismissed his attempt to stop a case seeking his removal from office over alleged involvement in the death of teacher-cum-blogger Albert Ojwang while in police custody at Central Police Station in Nairobi four months ago.
Justice Chacha Mwita overruled a preliminary objection filed by Lagat through his lawyer Cecil Miller that sought to have the petition thrown out arguing that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to preside over the matter.
The petition seeks his suspension from office over Ojwang’s death. However, investigations by the Independent Police Oversight Authority (IPOA) absolved the police boss from any wrongdoing.
The deputy police boss had argued that the case properly belonged before the Employment and Labour Relations Court.
Miller submitted that the dispute centered employment and administrative decisions internal to NPS and was therefore outside the High Court’s purview.
However, Justice Mwita firmly rejected this argument, stating that the core of the petition raised fundamental constitutional issues that only the High Court is empowered to address.
In his ruling, Justice Mwita affirmed the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.
“I’m unable to agree with the respondent that the court has no jurisdiction. I affirm that this court has jurisdiction. The preliminary objection is over-ruled,” the judge stated.
In the petition, which sought the DIG’s suspension, the petitioner demanded the court’s intervention over the manner in which Lagat stepped aside when Albert Ojwang died in police custody.
The petitioner raised concerns over the transparency and legality of Lagat’s decision to step aside without any formal process or clear legal framework.
Of significant concern to the petitioner was Lagat’s continued operation as the DIG despite initially announcing publicly that he had stepped aside to pave the way for investigations into the blogger’s death.
The case, filed by petitioner Eliud Matindi, centers on two key actions taken by DIG Lagat; his decision to step aside from his duties and his subsequent appointment of Principal Assistant Patrick Tito to serve as the acting Deputy Inspector General of the Kenya Police Service during his absence.
“In the present petition, the petitioner argued that the issues raised are in violation of the constitution and the law. According to the petitioner, the issues that the court is required to answer, include Whether the first interested party could step aside and whether he could appoint someone to act in his position during his absence” read Judge Chacha.
The court elaborated that the petition does not involve determining an employer-employee relationship.
Instead, the issues presented require a pure interpretation of the constitution and relevant laws.
“The issues raised do not include determination of employer employee relationship and related matters, rather the issues are purely on the interpretation of the constitution and the law namely whether the first interested party action was constitutional and legal and as a matter of fact there is no employer employee relationship issue on the petition except the constitutionality of the first interested party’s actions.” said Judge Chacha.
The central question the court is now tasked with answering are whether the Lagat had the legal authority to step aside voluntarily and whether he possessed the power to unilaterally appoint an officer to act in the senior position of Deputy Inspector General.
The petitioner’s case is that these actions were inconsistent with and in contravention of the Constitution.
With the preliminary objection dismissed, the path is now clear for the substantive constitutional questions to be heard.
The court has directed the parties to the suit to make detailed submissions on the matter on November 17, 2025 when the matter will come up for hearing.
This ruling ensures a full legal examination of the limits of the Deputy Inspector General’s powers, a case with significant implications for the leadership structure and accountability within the National Police Service.
