Kibagendi had previously secured relief from the High Court after challenging an earlier decision by the National Assembly of Kenya to suspend him.
The court order had effectively stopped the implementation of the initial disciplinary action and directed that no further measures be taken against him pending the determination of the case.
However, in a fresh development, the National Assembly proceeded to suspend the legislator for 14 days, triggering concern over whether the action contravenes the court’s directive.
Details surrounding the reasons for Kibagendi’s suspension were not immediately clear, but sources within Parliament indicated that the decision followed internal disciplinary processes.
The move is likely to ignite legal and constitutional debate, with analysts questioning whether Parliament acted within its mandate or in defiance of a valid court order.
Kibagendi has not publicly responded to the latest suspension, but his earlier court challenge suggested that he viewed the disciplinary action as unjust and procedurally flawed.
Legal experts note that court orders are binding and must be respected by all institutions, including Parliament.
Failure to comply with such orders could expose individuals or institutions to contempt of court proceedings.
At the same time, Parliament operates under its own standing orders and has the authority to discipline its members.
This creates a delicate balance between parliamentary privilege and judicial oversight, which has in the past led to institutional standoffs.
The situation involving Kibagendi now brings this tension into sharp focus, with expectations that the matter could return to court for interpretation and possible enforcement of the earlier ruling.
Observers say the outcome of the dispute could have broader implications on how disciplinary matters involving legislators are handled in the future, especially where court orders are involved.
The High Court had earlier intervened to ensure that due process was followed and to prevent what it considered premature or unlawful action against the MP.
The latest suspension, however, appears to have reopened the matter and could prompt further legal challenges.