[2012] KEHC 3033 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 3033 (KLR)

The court held that the President is the proper authority under the Commission of Inquiry Act to appoint a Commission and determine its terms of reference. There is nothing in the Act that limits the scope or matters which the President may refer to the Commission. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any breach of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] KEHC 3033 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Moraa Gesicho; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
16 July 2012
Case Number
Petition 285 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ex Parte Ruling
Outcome
petition struck out
Judges
DAS Majanja
Legal Topics
Commissions of Inquiry, Presidential Powers, Public Participation, Fundamental Rights, Judicial Review
Source Language
english
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Commissions of Inquiry Presidential Powers Public Participation Fundamental Rights Judicial Review

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moraa Gesicho

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ex Parte Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the President's terms of reference to the Commission of Inquiry contravened the Commission of Inquiry Act.
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner has established a breach of fundamental rights and freedoms to warrant court intervention.
  3. 3 Whether the preamble to the Commission of Inquiry Act creates enforceable legal rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the President is the proper authority under the Commission of Inquiry Act to appoint a Commission and determine its terms of reference. There is nothing in the Act that limits the scope or matters which the President may refer to the Commission. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any breach of fundamental rights or freedoms, and the preamble to the Act does not confer any enforceable legal rights. The court found no basis to interfere with the Commission's work at this stage, especially given the avenues for public participation and the petitioner's opportunity to appear before the Commission. Consequently, the petition was struck out as disclosing no cause of action.

Court Disposition

petition struck out

Orders

  • The petition is struck out with no order as to costs.