News Analysis
By Martin Masai
Machakos Governor Wavinya Ndeti today announced that she has reinstated Catherine Mutanu as County Executive Committee Member (CECM) for Finance after being served with what she describes as a court order. The governor says the order served upon her earlier today suspended the implementation of her dismissal letter dated July 6, 2026.
The letter dismissed Mutanu instantly, preventing her from appearing before the Assembly Select Committee hearing her impeachment case.
In a statement issued on today, the Governor said she was acting “in compliance with the said order and in obedience of the ongoing court process” and directed Mutanu to report back to work immediately pending the hearing and determination of the case.
The Governor went further to defend Mutanu over the delayed payment of County Assembly salaries, arguing that the Assembly itself had contributed to the delays through late processing of budget documents and submission of the necessary paperwork.
However, the Governor’s statement raises more questions than it answers.
The most glaring omission is the absence of any details regarding the court proceedings.
The statement does not disclose which court issued the order, the name of the judge, the case number or even the parties to the suit.
Without those details, it is impossible to independently verify the scope of the order.
It also remains unclear whether the petition was filed by Catherine Mutanu against Governor Wavinya Ndeti, whether the County Government of Machakos is the respondent, or whether the County Assembly of Machakos has been joined as an interested party or respondent.
These are not minor procedural issues.
The County Assembly unanimously adopted the report of its Select Committee after finding the allegations against her substantiated.
The Assembly’s unanimous resolution rode on the political and legal foundation upon which Governor Ndeti dismissed Mutanu, tying it’s findings to the Governor’s action to fire the minister.
If the Assembly is not a party to the court proceedings, another question naturally arises: was the judge informed that the dismissal was followed by a unanimous resolution of the County Assembly to fire her?
Equally important is the nature of the court order itself.
The Governor’s statement merely says the court suspended implementation of the dismissal letter. When Mutanu was fired, she instantly ceased being a CECM, and cleared her personal effects from her office and bade farewell to colleagues on their WhatsApp wall.
The statement does not reproduce the actual wording of the order.
There is a significant legal distinction between an order preserving the status quo, an order suspending implementation of an administrative decision, and an order expressly directing reinstatement to office.
Without seeing the court order, it is impossible to determine whether any court actually ordered Mutanu’s reinstatement or whether the Governor exercised her own interpretation of what compliance required.
The case also raises a broader constitutional question.
Courts frequently issue conservatory or interim orders to preserve the subject matter of litigation pending a full hearing.
Such orders are generally intended to prevent irreversible actions before all parties are heard.
Whether this particular order amounts to a temporary suspension of the dismissal or effectively restores Mutanu to office can only be answered by examining the actual court ruling.
The Governor’s statement leaves that critical question unanswered.
The Anchor unsuccessfully sought a copy of the order and pleadings from Mutanu’s legal contacts.
Until the pleadings, court order and parties to the suit become public, the legal basis upon which Catherine Mutanu has resumed office remains unclear.
For now, the public is being asked to accept the existence of a court order whose contents have not been disclosed.
As we go to press, several critical questions remain unanswered:
Which court issued the order?
Who is the presiding judge?
What is the case number?
Who are the parties to the suit?
What remedies did Mutanu seek?
Is the County Assembly a party to the proceedings?
Did the court merely suspend the dismissal letter or expressly order reinstatement?
Was the Assembly’s unanimous resolution presented to the court before the interim orders were issued?
Until these questions are answered, the latest chapter in the Mutanu saga appears far from settled.
The Anchor will publish the court order once it is made available
Stay Anchored
