The change in approach signals a shift in legal strategy, with the case now focusing on redress rather than a return to office.
Gachagua argues that his removal from office was unlawful and procedurally flawed, and that he is entitled to compensation for losses incurred as a result.
His petition seeks payment of remuneration and benefits he would have earned, as well as damages arising from what he terms as an unconstitutional process.
He is also asking the court to make declarations affirming that the impeachment did not meet the required legal and constitutional standards.
The case is being heard by a three-judge bench, which will determine whether the claims raised meet the threshold for the remedies sought.
The court is expected to examine whether due process was followed during the impeachment proceedings and whether any violations warrant compensation or other relief.
By abandoning the reinstatement prayer, Gachagua has effectively narrowed the scope of the case.
Legal observers note that such a move allows the court to concentrate on the legality of the process itself, rather than the political implications of returning him to office.
In his filings, Gachagua maintains that the impeachment proceedings were conducted in a manner that undermined constitutional safeguards.
He argues that the process failed to adhere to the principles of fairness, due process, and accountability required under the law.
The petition further states that the outcome of the impeachment caused him financial loss and affected his standing, hence the need for compensation and formal declarations by the court.