Chelilim v Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) & 6 others (Constitutional Petition E006 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 7438 (KLR) (2 June 2026) (Ruling)

Chelilim v Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) & 6 others (Constitutional Petition E006 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 7438 (KLR) (2 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7438 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Eldoret Constitutional Petition E006 of 2026 RN Nyakundi, J June 2, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 1, 2, 10, 22, 23, 35, 47, 73, 159 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ACT 2015 AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 35 & 36 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 2001 Between Johathan Bii Chelilim Petitioner and Kenya Copyright Board (Kecobo) 1st Respondent Haron Sitienei 2nd Respondent The Office Of Attorney General 3rd Respondent and Abraham Serem 1st Intended Interested Party Bernard Rotich 2nd Intended Interested Party Philip Muli 3rd Intended Interested Party David Kimutai Some 4th Intended Interested Party Ruling 1.Before Court is a notice of motion under Certificate of Urgency dated 4th March 2026 brought under Articles 22, 23, 159(2) (d), 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, Order 1 Rule of the Civil Procedure Rules, Rules 2 and 7 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013 and Order 1 Rule 10(2) and all other enabling provisions of the law where the Petitioner is seeking for orders that:a.Spent.b.A conservatory order do and is hereby issued restraining the 1st Respondent from initiating or undertaking any prosecution in respect tot hat literary work certificate known as Nguzo Kumi Manifesto registered by the 2nd Respondent in public interest pending hearing and determination of this application.c.An order do and is hereby issued that the Applicants be joined as interested parties and Co Petitioners in this case.d.The Applicants herein be granted leave to file their pleadings/petition against the Respondents in this matter and be admitted as Co-Petitioners/Interested Party to these proceedings and be served with all pleadings filed herein in the interest of justice.e.Costs of this Application be provided for by the Respondents. 2.Which application is based on the grounds that:a.The applicants herein are citizens of Uasin Gishu and the matters raised in these decisions and any judgment ensuing therefrom affects them directly.b.The Intended Interested Parties participated in the election process of the petitioner as his technical team and their participation in this suit is indispensable as the matters raised concerns a proposed pre-election development agenda.c.The subject matter involves registration of Nguzo Kumi manifesto which is purported to be the Petitioners manifesto which was reviewed and enriched/developed by a team of experts from the Petitioners thought process, who are the applicants herein and it is in the interest of this Honourable court that they are parties to this suit.d.The matter raised in this petition are constitutional in nature, and the court has been called to make pronunciation on weighty matters that require all available information brought before court for determination.e.The Applicants names have been adversely mentioned by the Respondents and it is only fair that they be granted a chance to give their side of the story before this Honourable court.f.It is in the interests of this Honourable Court is to do justice to the parties and this can only be done if only the right parties are in the suit are before the court.g.The 2nd Respondent has made adverse and false allegations against the petitioner, who is the leader of the county, and it is in the interest of justice that the Applicant be heard.h.The 2nd Respondent knowingly and intentionally registered a document which is known as Nguzo Kumi Manifesto with intent to blackmail the Petitioner almost two years after his election purporting that the Governor used his manifesto to run the county Government of Uasin Gishu.i.It is in the best interest of this Court to have all the available facts and circumstances surrounding any public interest matter to allow the Honourable Court to make proper and conclusive determination of issues before it.j.The 2nd Respondent has falsely claimed that he is originator of works that led to the manifesto of the Petitioner leading to his election as Governor of Uasin Gishu in2022.k.Granting the orders prayed in this Application will grant the court opportunity to properly dissect the issues properly and conclusively.l.The Applicants herein are thoroughly aggrieved by the action of the 2nd Respondent registering Nguzo Kumi as literary works with intention to blackmail the Petitioner, yet he was not originator.m.None of the parties in this Petition stands to suffer prejudice whatsoever upon grant of the orders sought herein.n.This matter raises serious issues of constitutional nature and those questioning the interpretation of the Copyright Act that the court needs to interpret.o.It is in interest of justice that the intended Interested Parties be heard before any orders that may affect them are issued by this Honourable Court;p.The orders sought herein will enable this Honourable Court to adjudicate upon and settle the matter after hearing all parties that may be affected by the ruling or judgment delivered by this Honourable Court. 3.Which application is supported by the annexed affidavit of Abraham Serem who deponed as follows:a.That I am the 1st Intended Interested Party herein, have the authority of my co-applicants and competent to swear this Affidavit on my own behalf and on behalf of the1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Intended Interested Parties with their authority.b.THAI the applicants herein have brought this motion seeking, inter alia, to be enjoined as Interested Parties in these proceedings.c.That it has come to our attention that this matter has been brought before this court after the 2nd Respondent registered a document called "nguzo kumi manifesto" in the year 2023 with the 1st Respondent and has attempted to use the same to blackmail the Petitioner to be employed yet he already is an employee of Uasin Gishu County.d.That this matter relates to the violation of the rights of the Petitioner and the interpretation of the import of registration of copyright of an election manifesto.e.THA I we were part of the technical team involved in the development of the Petitioner's Manifesto which he used to seek election in the year 2022, which forms the subject matter of the Petition before this Honourable Court.f.That the issues raised in this Petition directly touch on our work, participation, and intellectual input in the formulation of the said Manifesto.g.That the Respondents have made adverse allegations touching on the Manifesto and its development, which in effect implicate us without affording us an opportunity to respond.h.That unless we are enjoined in these proceedings, we stand to suffer prejudice as decisions may be made affecting our rights, reputation and constitutional standing without our participation.i.That we are aware that there are impending actions by the 1st Respondent that may lead to prosecution in respect of the Nguzo Kumi Manifesto, which may directly affect us.j.That it is only fair and just that we be granted an opportunity to be heard before any orders are made that may affect our rights and interests.k.That our participation in these proceedings will assist this Honourable Court ineffectually and completely adjudicating upon and settling all issues in controversy.l.That the Application has been brought in utmost good faith and in the interest of justice.m.That, I am advised by the advocate on record for the Respondent which advice I verily believe to be sound that it is in interest of justice that the intended Interested Parties be heard before any orders that may affect them are issued by this Honourable Court.n.That, the orders sought in the Application will enable this Honourable Court to adjudicate upon and settle the matter after hearing all parties that may be affected by the ruling or judgment delivered by this Honourable Court. Decision 4.This application was attended to on 5th day of March 2026 with the following orders in place:“The application be served upon the Respondent and the Petitioner to file a response within 16/3/2026. That upon service, brief submissions to be filed on joinder of interested parties for a determination on 18//3/2026. 5.Earlier on, on 5th day of March 2026 the Court in receipt of an application dated 13th February 2026 seeking the following orders:a.That this application be certified as urgent, be heard ex-parte in the first instance and service thereof be dispensed with.b.That this Honourable Court be pleased to order the 1st Defendant to specifically perform its statutory and constitutional duty by forthwith producing and availing to the Plaintiff:i.The original complaint lodged by the 2nd Defendant with their office;ii.All documents, evidence, expert reports, and ownership records relied upon;iii.Internal correspondence, minutes, or deliberations leading to the impugned decision.c.That pending the hearing and determination of this Petition, this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a conservatory order suspending and/or staying any decision, directive, enforcement action, or interference by the 1st Respondent arising from the complaint lodged by the 2nd Respondent.d.That pending the hearing and determination of this Petition and Application, this Honourable Court be pleased to restrain the Respondents, whether by themselves, agents, or servants, from issuing further threats, takedown demands, or enforcement measures against the Petitioner in relation to the alleged work.e.That the costs of this Application be provided for. 6.Based on these prayers, parties filed submissions and at the end of it all this Court ruled as follows:“ 33.The entire spectrum of the Notice of Motion at hand is whether judicial discretion can be exercised at this stage to grant the far reaching orders as premised by the Petitioner touching on various aspects of the statutory mandate accorded to the 1at Respondent. I take Judicial Notice that this constitutional court is clothed with wide powers to exercise discretion, which is the right to make official decisions using reason and judgment to choose from among acceptable alternatives. This is a very broad concept because of the different kinds of decisions which Judges must make within the same given circumstances. It is pertinent to mention that in this regard of the Notice of Motion as a forerunner of the petition the court granting the orders must and ought to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner moreso when the issues being raised for determination at the interlocutory stage are not as a matter of course as they transcend the functions of other constitutional organs charged with certain critical mandate and their interference is a decision of last resort. 34.It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting conservatory orders and other ancillary orders the jurisprudential binder has used the words like reasonable grounds, prima facie case, dissipation, wastage, or rendering the matter at hand nugatory. Which means the court dealing with the grant of conservatory orders or any such orders like notifying the adverse party evidential material can only do so if it satisfies itself but there is a genuine case but the investigation of it is marred with malice. It is not expected at this stage by the court to go for a deeper analysis of the evidence establishing the guilt of a petition or Applicant for that matter. This is not the province of a constitutional court at this stage. 35.For those reasons, keeping in view the recognised principles and factors on grant of conservatory orders as discussed above, this court exercises its power to issue such orders judiciously and only when necessity exists. My view is, injunctive or conservative reliefs are remedies not liberally granted, and therefore a court will always consider any hardship that may be occasioned by either of the parties by conducting a balancing act to either sustain or refuse such orders as prayed for by the Petitioner. True being a matter of discretion having appreciated the facts and applied those facts to the principles if this court was to exercise discretion it would not be in furtherance of Justice for the parties to this petition. This Notice of Motion, dated 13.2.2026 is lost hence paving way for the parties to fast-track the hearing and determination of the substantive petition. In terms of this decision, the application and notice to cross-examine the petitioner is moot. The costs of this application be in the cause. 36.Leave to apply granted and Status Conference on 26.3.2026 for further orders 7.This latest application dated the 4th of March 2026 seeking conservatory orders on identical or similar subject matter is not grantable by this Court for the same reasons canvassed and used as a basis to deliver the ruling dated 5th March 2026. This application is therefore moot. The best recourse for the parties as earlier on stipulated by this Court is to file submissions with regard to the substantive application so that the Court can address the interlocking issues with finality. 8.For those reasons, I once more invite the parties to appear before the Deputy Registrar of the High Court for a final status conference with regard to filing of submissions and the file can then be placed before the Presiding Judge to allocate a Judge to hear and determine the issues on the petition. That conference be and is hereby scheduled on 12th July 2026. DATED & DELVERED AT ELDORET THIS 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2026........................................R. NYAKUNDIJUDGE