https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11976

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION** **PETITION NO: HCCHRPET- E 125 OF 2026** **ALEX JOSHUA KOIGU……………………………………1ST PETITIONER** **NANCY NJAGI…………………………………………….2ND PETITIONER** **ANTHONY NJAGI………………………………………...3RD PETITIONER** VERSUS **PRINCIPAL JUDGE (HIGH COURT………………….…1STRESPONDENT** **CHIEF JUSTICE…………………………………………...2NDRESPONDENT** **JUDY THONGORI & CO. ADVOCATES……………....3RD RESPONDENT** **JOSEPHINE RUKARIA………………………………..…4TH RESPONDENT** **ATTORNEY GENERAL…………………………………..5THRESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** **BACKGROUND** 1. On 2nd July 2026, having disposed of the Notice of Motion that was filed alongside this Petition, I directed that the parties herein file their respective submissions and reserved judgment for 30th July 2026. None of the parties complied with the directions to file submissions. 2. The Petitioner presents the Petition under Articles 1 (1-3) (a,b & c), Article 2 (1,2,4 &5) Article 3(1),10 (1, 2(a), b, c),19 (1,2 & 3(a) ), 20( 1,2,&3 (a), 3(b), 22, 23, 25(a & c ), 27 ( 1,2 & 4), 28, 35 ( 1a, 1b) 47 (1, 2), 48, 50(1), 50(2)(k) , 73 ( 1(a)- 1(c)), 159(1, 2a, 2b, 2e)(b) & (d), 162 ( 2b) 165(3)(b) & (4) of the Constitution of Kenya. 3. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings in Succession Cause No. 1287 of 2007 and seeks a declaration that his rights under Articles 10, 25 (9)(c), 27, 28, 35, 40, 47,48, 50(1), 50 (2)(k) and 159 (2)(b) were consequently violated. 4. The 1st, 2nd and 5th Respondents contend that the Petition is fundamentally defective, for it impermissibly seeks to reopen matters already adjudicated before competent courts, thereby offending the doctrines of res judicata, sub judice, judicial independence, and the constitutional architecture governing appellate review. They assert that the Petitioners have bypassed available statutory remedies, failed to demonstrate any violation of constitutional rights with the requisite precision, and improperly invited this Court to interrogate discretionary judicial functions and alleged bias without cogent evidentiary foundation. 5. They further maintain that grievances touching on judicial conduct fall within the exclusive remit of the Judicial Service Commission, and that the reliefs sought would effectively require this Court to sit on appeal over a court of concurrent jurisdiction. In sum, the Respondents argue that the Petition discloses no justiciable constitutional controversy and ought to be dismissed. 6. The Petitioner seeks that this Court interrogate the proceedings and judgment in Succession Cause 1287 of 2007. As stated by the Supreme Court in **Macharia & another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 others [2012] KESC 8 (KLR)** **[68]A Court’s jurisdiction flows from either the Constitution or legislation or both. Thus, a Court of law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the constitution or other written law. It cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred upon it by law. We agree with counsel for the first and second respondents in his submission that the issue as to whether a Court of law has jurisdiction to entertain a matter before it, is not one of mere procedural technicality; it goes to the very heart of the matter, for without jurisdiction, the Court cannot entertain any proceedings. This Court dealt with the question of jurisdiction extensively in, In the Matter of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission (Applicant), Constitutional Application Number 2 of 2011. Where the Constitution exhaustively provides for the jurisdiction of a Court of law, the Court must operate within the constitutional limits. It cannot expand its jurisdiction through judicial craft or innovation.** 1. I reiterate my finding in the ruling of 2nd July 2026, where I observed that in **Maeski v Republic [2025] KEHC 6363 (KLR)**, the Court stated with unmistakable clarity: **“There is no law which bestows this court with jurisdiction to review a decision by a court of concurrent jurisdiction and/or its own decision. No judge of the High Court can superintend over fellow judges of that court or of the superior courts of equal status.”** 1. The Court of Appeal in **Peter Ng’ang’a Muiruri v Credit Bank Ltd & 2 Others, Civil Appeal No. 203 of 2006**, was equally categorical: **“It would be a usurpation of power… whatever decision emanates from a court regarding itself as a constitutional court, with powers of review over decisions of concurrent or superior jurisdiction, such decision is at best a nullity.”** 1. Article 165(6) of the Constitution is explicit; the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction extends only to subordinate courts and persons or bodies exercising judicial or quasi-judicial authority. It does not extend to the High Court itself, nor to courts of equal or superior status. That constitutional boundary is firm. It must be respected. 2. For this reason, the Petition must fail as without jurisdiction as settled in the seminal decision in **Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KECA 48 (KLR)** this court is compelled to down its tools. 3. The Petition is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction and file is accordingly closed. 4. Each party will bear their own costs. It is so ordered. **SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 30th DAY OF JULY 2026**. **P. M. NYAUNDI** **JUDGE** **In the Presence of** Fardosa Court Assistant Ms. Ndirangu for 2nd & 3rd Respondents Ms. Mwarao for 1st, 2nd & 5th Respondents