[2019] KEHC 3896 (KLR)
The court found that while there are cross-cutting issues between this petition and the consolidated Petitions No. 56, 58 and 59 of 2019, this petition raises important and distinct issues that merit a hearing on their own merits. The court recognized the need to avoid conflicting decisions and to allow parties to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 3896 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Okiya Omtatah Okoiti; Applicant: Nyakina Wycliff Gisebe; Applicant: Charles Omboko; Applicant: David Munyao Mwanzia; Applicant: Vincent Muili Muindi; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney-General; Respondent: Kenya Law Reform Commission; Respondent: The National Assembly; Respondent: The Hon. Justin Bedan Njoka Muturi; Respondent: The Hon. Kenneth Makelo Lusaka; Respondent: Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Information Communication and Technology
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 163 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Interlocutory Application for Adjournment and Stay of Hearing
- Outcome
- Application to vacate hearing date allowed; application for stay of petition declined.
- Legal Topics
- Adjournment of Hearing, Stay of Proceedings, Case Management, Cross Cutting Issues
- 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
Okiya Omtatah Okoiti
Applicant
Nyakina Wycliff Gisebe
Applicant
Charles Omboko
Applicant
David Munyao Mwanzia
Applicant
Vincent Muili Muindi
Applicant
The Hon. Attorney-General
Respondent
Kenya Law Reform Commission
Respondent
The National Assembly
Respondent
The Hon. Justin Bedan Njoka Muturi
Respondent
The Hon. Kenneth Makelo Lusaka
Respondent
Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Information Communication and Technology
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Interlocutory Application for Adjournment and Stay of Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the hearing of this petition should be vacated and stayed pending the determination of consolidated Petitions No. 56, 58 and 59 of 2019.
- 2 Whether the application for stay of proceedings is grounded in law and justified in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while there are cross-cutting issues between this petition and the consolidated Petitions No. 56, 58 and 59 of 2019, this petition raises important and distinct issues that merit a hearing on their own merits. The court recognized the need to avoid conflicting decisions and to allow parties to file supplementary submissions in light of developments in the consolidated petitions. Therefore, the court held that there were justifiable reasons to vacate the current hearing date and adjourn the matter. However, the court declined to stay the petition entirely, reiterating that the petition should proceed to hearing once the related matters are concluded. The timing of the...
Court Disposition
Application to vacate hearing date allowed; application for stay of petition declined.
Orders
- Today's hearing date is vacated.
- The petition shall be mentioned on 3rd October 2019 at 3:30pm for directions, including on a new hearing date.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
PETITION NO. 163 OF 2019
(FORMERLY MACHAKOS PETITION 7 OF 2019)
BETWEEN
OKIYA OMTATATH OKOITI.................................................1ST PETITIONER
NYAKINA WYCLIFF GISEBE...............................................2ND PETITIONER
CHARLES OMBOKO.............................................................3RD PETITIONER
DAVID MUNYAO MWANZIA.................................................4TH PETITIONER
VINCENT MUILI MUINDI.....................................................5TH PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL.....................................1ST RESPONDENT
KENYA LAW REFORM COMMISSION.............................2ND RESPONDENT
THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY...............................................3RD RESPONDENT
THE HON. JUSTIN BEDAN NJOKA MUTURI.................4TH RESPONDENT
THE HON. KENNETH MAKELO LUSAKA......................5TH RESPONDENT
CABINET SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION
COMMUNICATION AND TECHNOLOGY........................6TH RESPONDENT
AND
THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS..........................1ST INTERESTED PARTY
THE KATIBA INSTITUTE.......................................2ND INTERESTED PARTY
THE LAW SOCIETY OF KENYA...........................3RD INTERESTED PARTY
CHILD WELFARE SOCIETY OF KENYA............4TH INTERESTED PARTY
COMMUNICATION AUTHORITY OF KENYA...5TH INTERESTED PARTY
RULING NO. 2
This Petition was scheduled for hearing today. Before commencement of the hearing, Mr. Njoroge Regeru for the 2nd Respondent made an oral application to vacate the hearing date and stay the hearing of this Petition. The application by the 2nd Respondent was supported by the other Respondents and the interested parties who support them. We also heard the submissions in opposition by the Petitioners and the 2nd Interested Party.
We are being asked to vacate today’s hearing date and to stay the hearing of this petition pending the finalization of the hearing of the consolidated Petitions No, 56, 58 and 59 of 2019, which have been substantially heard by this Bench, and in which the issues raised are similar to some issues in this petition. The Petitioners and 2nd Interested Party oppose the application on the grounds that this is not a good reason to adjourn the hearing, and that the application for stay of this petition is not grounded in law.
We take the view that the hearing of this Petition cannot be dependent on the determination of the consolidated Petitions No, 56, 58 and 59 of 2019. This is because in our view, this petition raises important issues that merit hearing. We are however cognisant of the fact that there are issues relating to the National Integrated Identity Management System (NIIMS) that are raised in this Petition that are also raised in the consolidated Petitions, as argued by Mr. Regeru. This is what has informed our previous decisions to hear this petition immediately after the consolidated Petitions, so as to avoid a situation in which conflicting decisions are given on the cross- cutting issues. It is for this reason that the hearing date of this Petition has always been given in tandem with the hearing dates of the Consolidated Petitions.
As submitted by Mr. Regeru, it was indeed envisaged that the hearing of the consolidated Petitions would be concluded on 26th September 2019, and this petition then heard today. The intention of the court was to consider and determine both petitions simultaneously to save on time, and to avoid giving conflicting decisions on the cross-cutting issues as aforestated. Now that the consolidated Petitions are yet to be concluded, and noting Mr. Regeru expressed intentions to file supplementary submissions on the cross-cutting issues as a result of developments at the hearing of the consolidated Petitions this week, we find that these are justifiable reasons for an adjournment.
On the application for stay of this petition, we reiterate that this petition requires to be heard on it merits. It is only the timing of the hearing that shall be affected by the hearing of the consolidated Petitions as indicated in the foregoing paragraphs. We accordingly decline to stay this petition.
We however, vacate today’s hearing date, and direct that this petition shall be mentioned on 3rd October 2019 at 3. 30pm, when we shall give appropriate directions, including on a new hearing date.
It is so ordered.
DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019
P. NYAMWEYA MUMBI NGUGI W. KORIR
JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE