This is a Summary Ruling with respect to the 1st and 2nd Respondents' Notice of Motion Application dated 03/02/2026.
The Application seeks a review of the rescheduled judgment date of 04/03/2026 that was fixed in substitution of the judgment date of 29/01/2026 which was taken out as the Judge was away in Isiolo County for a three-day Alternative Justice Systems training whose dates were fixed after the Court had already set down the present Petition for judgment.
The Application seeks a fresh judgment date in the " first half of February 2026" ,or in the alternative, that the conservatory orders in place be vacated.
In the remainder of the month of February this Judge currently has 119 separate mentions, 33 matters coming up for hearing of Applications and/or Petitions as a single judge, two 3-Judge Bench hearings, and 37 Rulings and Judgments; without considering any additions that may arise as the month progresses. This Judge's Cause Lists are public documents that are accessible online and these statistics are easily verifiable.
The statistics in Paragraph 4 above do not include matters that will have to be re-assigned to this Judge as a consequence of the elevation of Court 1 to the Court of Appeal, which is happening on a daily basis; nor new matters.
There is a heavy workload on this Judge's desk. As the Applicants themselves concede, the matter was initially re-assigned administratively for judgment on 20/05/2026 which was where my diary was as at 29/01/2026 but that date was changed by the Judge's intervention to 04/03/2026 in recognition of the sensitivity of this matter and the pendency of interim orders that are of a broad nature.
Succinctly, there is no possibility of this Judge being able to deliver the judgment any earlier than the Fourth of March 2026 due to the workload pressure and congested diary.
The Applicants alternative of setting aside the conservatory orders would be in effect punishing the Petitioner for this Court heeding the call of Article 159(2)(c) and attending a training that seeks to deepen capacity within the High Court to deliver on that constitutional impetrative. That would be unjust.
The frustration of Applicants is understandable but to my mind a rescheduled date 34 days later when the Court's diary was in May and is now in June is not an inordinate delay nor unreasonable in the circumstances. The Applicants have every right, and indeed the post-2010 Judiciary actively encourages them to, to give their feedback on a matter affecting their case. In return, it is the duty of this Court in response to attempt to foster transparency and accountability in diary management by attempting to explain why the matter was rescheduled and why the fresh date issued was so fixed.
I wish to reassure the Applicants, and also all the other Parties in this matter, that the date selected was arrived at after a considered appraisal of the diary and to ensure that the judgment would be delivered on that new date and not taken out.
From the foregoing, it is clear that this Application was and is ripe for summary determination in Chambers, and in light of the above paragraphs, it cannot succeed; despite it being a perfectly reasonable request from the Applicants that was well within their rights and filed in utmost good faith.
Consequently, the 1st and 2nd Respondents/Applicants' Notice of Motion Application dated 03/02/2026 is summarily determined in Chambers and is dismissed with no costs arising on the same.
The Court thanks the 1st and 2nd Respondents/Applicants for being proactive and enabling this Court to walk the accountability and transparency talk that is set out in Article 10 of the Constitution.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AND IN CHAMBERS IN THE ABSENCE OF PARTIES ON THIS 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026.
The Application seeks a review of the rescheduled judgment date of 04/03/2026 that was fixed in substitution of the judgment date of 29/01/2026 which was taken out as the Judge was away in Isiolo County for a three-day Alternative Justice Systems training whose dates were fixed after the Court had already set down the present Petition for judgment.
The Application seeks a fresh judgment date in the " first half of February 2026" ,or in the alternative, that the conservatory orders in place be vacated.
In the remainder of the month of February this Judge currently has 119 separate mentions, 33 matters coming up for hearing of Applications and/or Petitions as a single judge, two 3-Judge Bench hearings, and 37 Rulings and Judgments; without considering any additions that may arise as the month progresses. This Judge's Cause Lists are public documents that are accessible online and these statistics are easily verifiable.
The statistics in Paragraph 4 above do not include matters that will have to be re-assigned to this Judge as a consequence of the elevation of Court 1 to the Court of Appeal, which is happening on a daily basis; nor new matters.
There is a heavy workload on this Judge's desk. As the Applicants themselves concede, the matter was initially re-assigned administratively for judgment on 20/05/2026 which was where my diary was as at 29/01/2026 but that date was changed by the Judge's intervention to 04/03/2026 in recognition of the sensitivity of this matter and the pendency of interim orders that are of a broad nature.
Succinctly, there is no possibility of this Judge being able to deliver the judgment any earlier than the Fourth of March 2026 due to the workload pressure and congested diary.
The Applicants alternative of setting aside the conservatory orders would be in effect punishing the Petitioner for this Court heeding the call of Article 159(2)(c) and attending a training that seeks to deepen capacity within the High Court to deliver on that constitutional impetrative. That would be unjust.
The frustration of Applicants is understandable but to my mind a rescheduled date 34 days later when the Court's diary was in May and is now in June is not an inordinate delay nor unreasonable in the circumstances. The Applicants have every right, and indeed the post-2010 Judiciary actively encourages them to, to give their feedback on a matter affecting their case. In return, it is the duty of this Court in response to attempt to foster transparency and accountability in diary management by attempting to explain why the matter was rescheduled and why the fresh date issued was so fixed.
I wish to reassure the Applicants, and also all the other Parties in this matter, that the date selected was arrived at after a considered appraisal of the diary and to ensure that the judgment would be delivered on that new date and not taken out.
From the foregoing, it is clear that this Application was and is ripe for summary determination in Chambers, and in light of the above paragraphs, it cannot succeed; despite it being a perfectly reasonable request from the Applicants that was well within their rights and filed in utmost good faith.
Consequently, the 1st and 2nd Respondents/Applicants' Notice of Motion Application dated 03/02/2026 is summarily determined in Chambers and is dismissed with no costs arising on the same.
The Court thanks the 1st and 2nd Respondents/Applicants for being proactive and enabling this Court to walk the accountability and transparency talk that is set out in Article 10 of the Constitution.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AND IN CHAMBERS IN THE ABSENCE OF PARTIES ON THIS 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026.