1. By a Motion on Notice taken out on 06/08/2026 , the 1st Petitioner sought various orders against the Respondents. The Motion was brought under, inter alia, the Vacation Rules and Articles 22, 23, 47, 159, 165, 201, 227, 232, 258 and 259 of the Constitution and Sections 7, 8, 9 and 11 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015.
2. The grounds for the application were set out in the body thereof and in the supporting affidavit of Wellington Okowa sworn 06/08/2026. These were that, the 1st Petitioner is an association representing rice farmers whose interests are affected by the administration and implementation policies affecting domestic rice market.
3. That Gazette Notice No. 10061 of 06/08/2026 authorized the importation into Kenya of 490,000 Metric Tonnes of Grade 1 Milled White Rice duty free by the 30/11/2026. That the 1st Petitioner was not challenging the validity or subsistence of the said Gazette Notice but rather its administration and implementation.
4. That on 08/07/2026, the 1st Petitioner took out a Motion before this Court where it sought, inter alia, transparency, accountability and compliance with the authorized ceiling of 490,000 Metric Tonnes. That pursuant thereto, the Court made an order directing the respondents to make certain disclosures which the respondents complied with.
5. That upon considering the disclosures made, it was evident that the importation pursuant to the said Gazette Notice was still ongoing but there remained some unutilized balance from the authorized quota. That it was necessary therefore to allow the statutory and constitutional functions of those bestowed with the mandate of effecting the same to continue to carry out the same in an expeditious, lawful and constitutional manner.
6. That the remaining period in the implementation of the said Gazette Notice was running out. That the orders sought by the 1st Petitioner were for effective implementation of the said Gazette Notice. That it was in the public interest as it touches on issues of food security, rice prices, public revenue and livelihoods of farmers. The 1st Petitioner therefore prayed that the Orders sought in the Motion be granted.
7. The Motion was served upon all parties and came up for inter partes hearing on 12/08/2026 . The 2nd and 3rd Petitioner supported the same. The 1st to 5th Respondent indicated that they were not opposed to the orders sought. However, the 6th Respondent opposed the application but urged nevertheless that the subject Gazette Notice should be left to operate.
8. Mr. Masaka orally argued the application re-hearsing the grounds in the Motion. That the Orders sought could be granted and the Petition be left to be heard at the appropriate time. That the Motion was necessitated by the disclosures made by the respondents pursuant to an earlier Order by the Court.
9. In opposing the application but supporting the implementation of the Gazette Notice, Mr. Ochieng Learned Counsel of the 6th Respondent submitted that the application was an abuse of the Public Interest Litigation. That it sought contrary orders to the orders previously sought in an application that is still pending. That the granting of the Orders will make the Petition Otiose. He urged that the application be dismissed.
10. I have considered the Motion, the averments in the supporting affidavit and the oral submission of Learned Counsel. This is an application for various orders that will have the effect of effectuating Gazette Notice No. 10061.
11. The first issue I have to determine is whether this Motion is contrary to the previously filed Motion. I have carefully considered the Motion dated 08/07/2016 by the 1st Petitioner, it is clear that the principal prayers sought were from Nos. 2 to 5 thereof. They sought transparency in the implementation of the Gazette Notice.
12. Prayer No. 2 was for making of certain disclosures in order to test the veracity of the Gazette Notice by inquiring how the decision to publish the Gazette Notice was arrive at. It is because of that reason that the Court granted that order ex-parte since it considered the same to be a condition precedent to the consideration of the other 3 prayers.
13. The Court has noted that the prayers that are contrary to what the present Motion seeks were made in the alternative. They were sought in the event the respondents failed to comply with the principle of transparency sought in the preceding prayers. That being the case, I do not agree with the proposition by Mr. Ochieng that the prayers sought in the current Motion are in contradiction to the Motion of 08/07/2026 .
14. As regards public interest litigation, Article 22 of the Constitution provides:
“22(1) Every person has the right to institute court proceeding claiming that a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated or infringed, or is threatened”.
15. My understanding of the above provision is that, it was to meant to open up public interest litigation in defence of the Constitution. The same was informed by what had befallen our previous Constitution. The doctrine of locus standi had completely stifled public interest litigation in this country and the above provision came in as a saviour. In this regard, the courts cannot pretend to narrowly interpret that right but rather robustly interpret the same with a view to expand the rights. This Court therefore, is not satisfied that the present Motion is an abuse of public interest litigation.
16. Tuning to the Motion, the Court notes that the Petition in this matter sought to challenge the efficacy of the impugned Gazette Notice. The basis for such challenge is contained in the body of the Petition itself and this Court cannot go into the same at this juncture.
17. What is critical at this juncture is that the 1st Petitioner has told the Court that, following the disclosures made by the Respondents in compliance with the Orders made by this court on 08/07/2026, it is necessary that the implementation of the impugned Gazette Notice be proceeded with in accordance with the Constitution and statutory provisions. That the Orders are facilitative of the constitutional requirements upon the Respondents on their respective functions.
18. This Court being mindful that the impugned Gazette Notice is time bound, that the issue of public interest on food security as well as the interest of the farmers on the rice pricing and the Motion being un-opposed, the same is allowed in terms of prayer nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Motion pending the hearing of the Petition. As regards Order 9, the report be made within 30 days of this Order.
It is so ordered.
2. The grounds for the application were set out in the body thereof and in the supporting affidavit of Wellington Okowa sworn 06/08/2026. These were that, the 1st Petitioner is an association representing rice farmers whose interests are affected by the administration and implementation policies affecting domestic rice market.
3. That Gazette Notice No. 10061 of 06/08/2026 authorized the importation into Kenya of 490,000 Metric Tonnes of Grade 1 Milled White Rice duty free by the 30/11/2026. That the 1st Petitioner was not challenging the validity or subsistence of the said Gazette Notice but rather its administration and implementation.
4. That on 08/07/2026, the 1st Petitioner took out a Motion before this Court where it sought, inter alia, transparency, accountability and compliance with the authorized ceiling of 490,000 Metric Tonnes. That pursuant thereto, the Court made an order directing the respondents to make certain disclosures which the respondents complied with.
5. That upon considering the disclosures made, it was evident that the importation pursuant to the said Gazette Notice was still ongoing but there remained some unutilized balance from the authorized quota. That it was necessary therefore to allow the statutory and constitutional functions of those bestowed with the mandate of effecting the same to continue to carry out the same in an expeditious, lawful and constitutional manner.
6. That the remaining period in the implementation of the said Gazette Notice was running out. That the orders sought by the 1st Petitioner were for effective implementation of the said Gazette Notice. That it was in the public interest as it touches on issues of food security, rice prices, public revenue and livelihoods of farmers. The 1st Petitioner therefore prayed that the Orders sought in the Motion be granted.
7. The Motion was served upon all parties and came up for inter partes hearing on 12/08/2026 . The 2nd and 3rd Petitioner supported the same. The 1st to 5th Respondent indicated that they were not opposed to the orders sought. However, the 6th Respondent opposed the application but urged nevertheless that the subject Gazette Notice should be left to operate.
8. Mr. Masaka orally argued the application re-hearsing the grounds in the Motion. That the Orders sought could be granted and the Petition be left to be heard at the appropriate time. That the Motion was necessitated by the disclosures made by the respondents pursuant to an earlier Order by the Court.
9. In opposing the application but supporting the implementation of the Gazette Notice, Mr. Ochieng Learned Counsel of the 6th Respondent submitted that the application was an abuse of the Public Interest Litigation. That it sought contrary orders to the orders previously sought in an application that is still pending. That the granting of the Orders will make the Petition Otiose. He urged that the application be dismissed.
10. I have considered the Motion, the averments in the supporting affidavit and the oral submission of Learned Counsel. This is an application for various orders that will have the effect of effectuating Gazette Notice No. 10061.
11. The first issue I have to determine is whether this Motion is contrary to the previously filed Motion. I have carefully considered the Motion dated 08/07/2016 by the 1st Petitioner, it is clear that the principal prayers sought were from Nos. 2 to 5 thereof. They sought transparency in the implementation of the Gazette Notice.
12. Prayer No. 2 was for making of certain disclosures in order to test the veracity of the Gazette Notice by inquiring how the decision to publish the Gazette Notice was arrive at. It is because of that reason that the Court granted that order ex-parte since it considered the same to be a condition precedent to the consideration of the other 3 prayers.
13. The Court has noted that the prayers that are contrary to what the present Motion seeks were made in the alternative. They were sought in the event the respondents failed to comply with the principle of transparency sought in the preceding prayers. That being the case, I do not agree with the proposition by Mr. Ochieng that the prayers sought in the current Motion are in contradiction to the Motion of 08/07/2026 .
14. As regards public interest litigation, Article 22 of the Constitution provides:
“22(1) Every person has the right to institute court proceeding claiming that a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated or infringed, or is threatened”.
15. My understanding of the above provision is that, it was to meant to open up public interest litigation in defence of the Constitution. The same was informed by what had befallen our previous Constitution. The doctrine of locus standi had completely stifled public interest litigation in this country and the above provision came in as a saviour. In this regard, the courts cannot pretend to narrowly interpret that right but rather robustly interpret the same with a view to expand the rights. This Court therefore, is not satisfied that the present Motion is an abuse of public interest litigation.
16. Tuning to the Motion, the Court notes that the Petition in this matter sought to challenge the efficacy of the impugned Gazette Notice. The basis for such challenge is contained in the body of the Petition itself and this Court cannot go into the same at this juncture.
17. What is critical at this juncture is that the 1st Petitioner has told the Court that, following the disclosures made by the Respondents in compliance with the Orders made by this court on 08/07/2026, it is necessary that the implementation of the impugned Gazette Notice be proceeded with in accordance with the Constitution and statutory provisions. That the Orders are facilitative of the constitutional requirements upon the Respondents on their respective functions.
18. This Court being mindful that the impugned Gazette Notice is time bound, that the issue of public interest on food security as well as the interest of the farmers on the rice pricing and the Motion being un-opposed, the same is allowed in terms of prayer nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Motion pending the hearing of the Petition. As regards Order 9, the report be made within 30 days of this Order.
It is so ordered.