accordance with the Geneva 1989 (GE 89). However, in 2006, the ITU organized and hosted an international
conference known as Regional Radio Communications Conference 2006, where it was resolved that its member
states would migrate from analogue broadcasting technology to digital broadcasting technology by 17 th June
2015.
6. The migration was important because it would result in efficient use of the limited frequency spectrum, more
channels in one frequency as well as freeing up frequencies for other services, additional services, and higher
video and audio quality. It would also lead to enhanced innovation due to competition arising from new entrants
such as new broadcasters and developers of interactive applications. The intention was to ensure that
consumers have a wider choice of enhanced broadcasting applications, multimedia data and entertainment
services.
7. Even though the deadline set by ITU for the switchover from analogue to digital was 17th June 2015, the
government of Kenya set itself a deadline of December 2012 in order to implement the recommendation made by
the Task Force established by the Minister for Information and Communications known as 'Task Force on the
Migration from Analogue to Digital Broadcasting'. The Task Force also recommended that the migration be
undertaken in three phases and that there be a common transmission of digital broadcasting signal which would
be done by a separate entity.
8. The 1st respondent was designated as the sector regulator for broadcasting while the 2 ndrespondent as the
public broadcaster was mandated to form an independent company to run signal distribution services in order to
avoid conflict of interest. Pursuant to these recommendations, the Kenya Communications (Amendment) Act
2008 was enacted. It extended the 1 st respondent's licensing responsibilities as well as other regulatory powers
and duties in relation to broadcasting.
9. In February 2008, the 2nd respondent was granted conditional authority to provide broadcasting signal
distribution services as the public broadcaster. It was required to form a company to offer distribution services,
which it did by the incorporation of a company known as M/s Signet Limited. `
The Petition
10. In the petition dated 22nd March 2012 and supported by the affidavit sworn by Mr. Richard W. Bell, the Chief
Executive Officer of the petitioner, sworn on the same date, the petitioner seeks the following orders;
(i) A Declaration as a consequence of selective interpretation of the Kenya Information and Communications Act,
1998 as well as failure to enforce its provisions in an even-headed (sic) manner, the 1st respondent has discriminated
against the petitioner in breach of Article 27(1) and (2) of the Constitution.
(ii) A declaration that as a consequence of selective interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Kenya
Information and communications Act, 1998 the 1 st respondent has violated the petitioner’s freedom of media as
enshrined in Articles 34(1) and (2) of the Constitution.
(iii) An order requiring the 1st respondent to enforce the provisions of section 46(N) and 46(O) of the Kenya
Information and Communications Act, 1998 as well as Regulations 11 and 16 of the Kenya information and
communications, 2009 (sic) as prescribed with respect to all parties and not selectively.
(iv) An order restraining the 2nd respondent whether by itself or through SIGNET from providing signal distribution
services until and when (sic) it is duly licensed under section 46N of the Kenya Information and Communications