Communications Commission of Kenya & 4 others v Royal Media Services Limited & 7 others [2014] eKLR
the grounds or submissions to be advanced by the person interested in the proceeding,
their relevance to the proceedings and the reasons for believing that the submissions will be useful to
the Court and different from those of the other parties” [emphasis supplied].
[22] In determining whether the applicant should be admitted into these proceedings as an
Interested Party we are guided by this Court’s Ruling in the Mumo Matemo case where the Court (at
paragraphs 14 and 18) held:
“[An] interested party is one who has a stake in the proceedings, though he or she was not party
to the cause ab initio. He or she is one who will be affected by the decision of the Court when it is
made, either way. Such a person feels that his or her interest will not be well articulated unless
he himself or she herself appears in the proceedings, and champions his or her cause…”
[23] Similarly, in the case of Meme v. Republic,[2004] 1 EA 124, the High Court observed that a
party could be enjoined in a matter for the reasons that:
“(i) Joinder of a person because his presence will result in the complete settlement of all the
questions involved in the proceedings;
(ii) joinder to provide protection for the rights of a party who would otherwise be adversely
affected in law;
(iii) joinder to prevent a likely course of proliferated litigation.”
[24] We ask ourselves the following questions: (a) what is the intended interested party’s stake and
relevance in the proceedings? and (b) will the intended interested party suffer any prejudice if denied
joinder?
[25] In accordance with Rule 25 (2)(a), the applicant has been described as a limited liability
company undertaking diverse public-interest projects related to public awareness, environmental
conservation, community development, and empowerment through various forms and mediums in
Kenya. In accordance with Rule 25(2)(c), the applicant also stated that its relevance in these
proceedings was drawn from its litigation history, in support of liberalizing the broadcasting frequencies
in Kenya, on its own behalf and on behalf of other interested parties and members of the general public.
We note, however, that in the instant appeal, the applicant was neither a party at the High Court nor at
the Court of Appeal. It is, therefore, not evident from the record that the applicant has a legitimate stake,
or interest in the matter.
[26] The matter giving rise to this appeal was first determined in High Court Constitutional Petition
No. 557 of 2013, in which Judgement was delivered on 23rdDecember, 2013. The 1st, 2ndand 3rd
respondents being aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, filed an appeal before the Court of
Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2014). On 28th March, 2014, the Court of Appeal allowed the said appeal
with costs, and which decision is now the subject of the present appeal. The applicant now seeks to be
enjoined in this matter, even though it was neither a party at the High Court nor at the Court of Appeal.
The applicant has not demonstrated how the ends of justice would better be served by enjoining it in the
appeal. Despite the applicant’s argument that its rights under Article 34 of the Constitution will be
violated if not allowed to join in the appeal, we note that the proper forum of first instance, in seeking the
enforcement of the Bill of Rights, is the High Court, and not this Court.
[27] We cannot exercise our discretion to enjoin a party that disguises itself as an Interested Party,
http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 6/11