in the nature of notices that afford RMS to show cause why
regulatory action should not be taken against it. As a consequence,
I reject prayers (d), and (e) of the amended petition.”
11.
The matter did not deal with any other notices or other frequencies
and cannot be construed to restrain CCK from taking regulatory
action in any other case concerning frequencies that were not the
subject of the petition. A similar argument was also dealt with at
paragraphs 46 and 47 of the judgment which dealt with the effect
of other cases where conservatory orders were in force; Petition
No. 244 of 2011, Media Owners Association v Attorney General,
the Ministry of Information and Communication and the
Communication Commission of Kenya and Nairobi HC Misc.
Appl. No. JR 284 of 2011 Magic Radio Ltd v The
Communications Commission of Kenya.
12.
The petitioner is right and indeed entitled to bring this case against
CCK to impugn its action but if the argument is that the warrants
of search and seizure are connected to the case I determined, then I
must make it very clear that the proposed inquiry or course
suggested by the petitioner cannot proceed on that basis as the
licences and frequencies that were not subject to the previous
proceedings.
13.
Both parties concede that I have wide jurisdiction under Article
165. Indeed, the hallmark of our jurisprudence particularly as it
pertains to enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms is that
the court must be able to fashion appropriate reliefs that deal with
the exigencies of each case.
PETITION NO. 59 OF 2013 RULING No. 2 03.02.2013
Page 5