[2012] KEHC 1085 (KLR)
The court found that although there are similar underlying issues in both this petition and Nairobi HC Misc. No. 339 of 2012, the matters concern different appointments within the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation. The court held that the petition is not entirely frivolous and that, given its nature as a claim for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 1085 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Jared Juma; Respondent: Kenya Broadcasting Corporation; Respondent: The Board of Directors, Kenya Broadcasting Corporation; Respondent: Charles Waithaka Waihenya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 425 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs
- Outcome
- Notice of Motion for security for costs dismissed; no order as to costs; petition to be mentioned together with related matter.
- Judges
- DAS Majanja
- Legal Topics
- Enforcement of Fundamental Rights, Security for Costs, Access to Justice, Court Jurisdiction
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jared Juma
Petitioner
Kenya Broadcasting Corporation
Respondent
The Board of Directors, Kenya Broadcasting Corporation
Respondent
Charles Waithaka Waihenya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petition is frivolous and warrants an order for security for costs.
- 2 Whether ordering security for costs would unjustifiably limit the petitioner.s right of access to court under Article 22 of the Constitution.
- 3 Whether the issues in this petition and Nairobi HC Misc. No. 339 of 2012 are sufficiently similar to warrant joint hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although there are similar underlying issues in both this petition and Nairobi HC Misc. No. 339 of 2012, the matters concern different appointments within the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation. The court held that the petition is not entirely frivolous and that, given its nature as a claim for enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms, ordering security for costs would unduly restrict the petitioner.s constitutional right of access to justice. The court therefore declined to order security for costs and dismissed the respondents. application, further directing that both matters be mentioned together for possible joint hearing.
Court Disposition
Notice of Motion for security for costs dismissed; no order as to costs; petition to be mentioned together with related matter.
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 30th October 2012 is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts)
Petition 425 of 2012 [if !mso]> <style> v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-ZA X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if !mso]> <style> st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; text-align:justify; text-indent:-17. 85pt; line-height:200%; font-size:11. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]
JARED JUMA .................................................................... PETITIONER
AND
KENYA BROADCASTING CORPORATION ......... 1ST RESPONDENT
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
KENYA BROADCASTINGCORPORATION .........2ND RESPONDENT
CHARLES WAITHAKA WAIHENYA …................ 3RD RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The respondents filed the Notice of Motion dated 30th October 2012 seeking security for costs. The application was argued on 5th November and I ruled as follows;
Upon perusing the Notice of Motion dated 30. 10. 2012, it became apparent that there is a similar case pending before the court namely; JR 339 of 2012 Republic v Kenya Broadcasting Corporation ex-parte Jared Juma. It appears to raise similar issues. The petitioner should now show cause why this petition should not be struck out.
2. When called upon to show cause, the petitioner stated that the two cases differ materially and that this petition was specifically for the purpose of enforcing fundamental rights and freedoms. I have now perused the file in Nairobi HC Misc. No. 339 of 2012 and although it raises similar underlying issues, it concerns the appointment of the Chief and Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation in March 2012 and the procedure adopted. Nairobi Petition 425 of 2012 deals with the appointment of the Managing Director of the Corporation.
3. In view of the fact that the same issues are raised in respect of these positions, it is proper that the two cases be heard together. I hasten to add that in both cases, the High Court has jurisdiction to deal with and enforce the provisions of the Constitution under Article 165.
4. I am not convinced that the petitioner’s cause of action is entirely frivolous and in view of the fact that the case is one for enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms, I am not inclined to make an order for security for costs who consequence will be to limit the right of access to the court contemplated in Article 22.
5. In view of the foregoing, I decline to order security for costs and I therefore dismiss the Notice of Motion dated 30th October 2012 but with no order as to costs. I direct that this petition be mentioned on 12th November 2012 before Justice Warsame in the Judicial Review Division together with Nairobi HC Misc. No. 339 of 2012.
DATEDandDELIVEREDatNAIROBIthis 8th day of November 2012
D.S. MAJANJA
JUDGE
Mr Jared Juma, the petitioner in person.
Ms Kisa instructed by Kangethe and Mola Advocates for the respondents.