8.
Mr Kilonzo, appearing for the CCK, opposes the adoption of such
a course. He submitted that the action taken by CCK was in
consonance with the decision in Petition No. 346 of 2012 where
the Court held that CCK is entitled to take regulatory action.
Furthermore, that petition in that case did not involve at all any of
the frequencies that were the subject of the searches and seizures
and that CCK is entitled to proceed with regulatory action in light
of the clear declaration of the court regarding the regulatory
authority of the CCK. Counsel also submitted that the warrants
were issued pursuant to section 118 of the Criminal Procedure
Code and if any relief is to be given, it is provided for under the
said statute.
9.
I have considered the parties arguments and I must warn myself
that I am not hearing or making a determination of this case. What
is before me is an informal interlocutory application where the
petitioner seeks orders necessary to enable the court adjudicate the
case fairly and effectively.
10.
In order to deal with the issues raised by the petitioner, it is
important to put the judgment I delivered on 18th January 2013 in
Petition No. 346 of 2012 in perspective as the reason given by the
petitioner for impugning the search and seizure warrants is that the
action undermines the judgment and proceedings thereon. That
judgment dealt with specific letters and notices and at paragraph 63
of the judgment I stated as follows, “I find and hold that the letters
dated 6th March 2012, 3rd August 2012, the Notice of Violation
dated 3rd August 2012 and the notice issued in the Daily Nation of
17th May 2012 are not in contravention of the petitioners rights
protected by Articles 34, 40 and 47 of the Constitution as they are
PETITION NO. 59 OF 2013 RULING No. 2 03.02.2013
Page 4