for determination in the Amended Chamber Summons dated 4th
February 2013 are in the nature of mandatory orders whose effect
would be to restore to the petitioners the premises and the seized
equipment.
6.
The petitioner now seeks to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 165(6) and (7) which provides as follows;
(6) The High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the
subordinate courts and over any person, body or authority
exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function, but not over
a superior court.
(7) For the purposes of clause (6), the High Court may call for
the record of any proceedings before any subordinate court
or person, body or authority referred to in clause (6), and
may make any order or give any direction it considers
appropriate to ensure the fair administration of justice.
7.
According to the submission by Dr Kamau Kuria, S.C., counsel for
the petitioner, the evidence before the court when taken as a whole
shows that CCK was intent on undermining the judgment in
Petition No. 346 of 2012 and it is appropriate for the court to call
for the records of the subordinate court in order to conduct an
inquiry into the matter so as to prevent an abuse of the court
process. The petitioner’s case is that this conduct is evidenced by
the fact that parallel enforcement proceedings were began when
Petition No. 346 of 2012 was on-going and that the action was
taken during the weekend when the petitioner has no opportunity
to apply for conservatory orders. Counsel submitted that the
conduct by CCK constitutes an abuse of the court process and
amounts to contempt of court and the court should exercise its
inherent jurisdiction to investigate the matter.
PETITION NO. 59 OF 2013 RULING No. 2 03.02.2013
Page 3