RULING
1. This application dated 11/4/2023 was filed on 11/4/2023 b the Applicant though a busy body known as Cornel L Shilanya. If she has paid him money, she should recover the same.
2. The application seeks leave to institute judicial review proceedings against the decision of Hon Lady Justice NA Matheka given in Mombasa ELC 239 OF 2114 6/12/2022. It was brought under certificate of urgency and landed in my Docket.
3. To be able to proceed, the court must satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the authority to decide therefore, where the Court has jurisdiction it must take, jurisdiction while where it has no jurisdiction it must down its tools.
4. On the other hand, also the Court cannot by utter malaise or dislike for a file divest itself of jurisdiction that it has. In the case of the Motor Vessel,1989eKLR Lilian S. Justice Nyarangi JA stated as doth: -
“Jurisdiction is everything. Without it a Court has no power to make one more step. Where a Court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for continuation of proceedings pending other evidence. A Court of law down(s) tools in respect of the matter before it in the moment it holds the opinion that it has no jurisdiction.”
5. This Court is established under Article 165 of the Constitution with specific duties assigned to the Court. However, under Article 165(5) the Constitution prohibits the High Court from dealing with matters which are within the exclusive competence of Courts contemplated under Article 162 of the Constitution.
162. The High Court shall not have jurisdiction in respect of matters—
(a) reserved for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under this Constitution; or
(b) falling within the jurisdiction of the courts contemplated in Article 162 (2).
6. Article 162 establishes the Environment & Land Court with jurisdiction to deal with environment and use and occupation of and title to land. To be able to demonstrate whether the Court has to determine the subject matter of the petition. If looks at the subject matter and not just prayers sought.
7. In Republic v Karisa Chengo & 2 others [2017] eKLR, the supreme court posited as doth: -
“79] It follows from the above analysis that, although the High Court and the specialized Courts are of the same status, as stated, they are different Courts. It also follows that the Judges appointed to those Courts exercise varying jurisdictions, depending upon the particular Courts to which they were appointed. From a reading of the statutes regulating the specialized Courts, it is a logical inference, in our view, that their jurisdictions are limited to the matters provided for in those statutes. Such an inference is reinforced by and flows from Article 165(5) of the Constitution, which prohibits the High Court from exercising jurisdiction in respect of matters “reserved for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under this Constitution; or (b) falling within the jurisdiction of the Courts contemplated in Article 162(2).”
8. The jurisdictional relationship between the courts of equal status and the high court is provided under Article 165(4) 6 provides as doth: -
“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.”
9. The Application seeks orders to quash a decision of a superior court. The court has no jurisdiction to do so. I have reminded litigants that one you lose in a high court or court of equal status, you move to the court of Appeal. It is peopled with eminent judges who sit in benches of three or more. Their wisdom will guide.
10. This is also one of the cases, that points to the place of quacks in the society. They have misled the applicant to file this application. The Supreme Court decisions in the matter of Interim Independent Electoral Commission (2011)eKLR and Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another Vs KCB & 2 Others (2012)eKLR warn that a Court may not arrogate to itself Jurisdiction through the craft of Incorporation, or by way of endeavours to discern or interpret the intentions of part/point where the worldly of Legislation is clear and there is no ambiguity.
11. This court has no jurisdiction to grant the orders sought. Consequently, the application is stuck out with no order as to costs as service has not been done. The file is closed.
1. This application dated 11/4/2023 was filed on 11/4/2023 b the Applicant though a busy body known as Cornel L Shilanya. If she has paid him money, she should recover the same.
2. The application seeks leave to institute judicial review proceedings against the decision of Hon Lady Justice NA Matheka given in Mombasa ELC 239 OF 2114 6/12/2022. It was brought under certificate of urgency and landed in my Docket.
3. To be able to proceed, the court must satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the authority to decide therefore, where the Court has jurisdiction it must take, jurisdiction while where it has no jurisdiction it must down its tools.
4. On the other hand, also the Court cannot by utter malaise or dislike for a file divest itself of jurisdiction that it has. In the case of the Motor Vessel,1989eKLR Lilian S. Justice Nyarangi JA stated as doth: -
“Jurisdiction is everything. Without it a Court has no power to make one more step. Where a Court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for continuation of proceedings pending other evidence. A Court of law down(s) tools in respect of the matter before it in the moment it holds the opinion that it has no jurisdiction.”
5. This Court is established under Article 165 of the Constitution with specific duties assigned to the Court. However, under Article 165(5) the Constitution prohibits the High Court from dealing with matters which are within the exclusive competence of Courts contemplated under Article 162 of the Constitution.
162. The High Court shall not have jurisdiction in respect of matters—
(a) reserved for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under this Constitution; or
(b) falling within the jurisdiction of the courts contemplated in Article 162 (2).
6. Article 162 establishes the Environment & Land Court with jurisdiction to deal with environment and use and occupation of and title to land. To be able to demonstrate whether the Court has to determine the subject matter of the petition. If looks at the subject matter and not just prayers sought.
7. In Republic v Karisa Chengo & 2 others [2017] eKLR, the supreme court posited as doth: -
“79] It follows from the above analysis that, although the High Court and the specialized Courts are of the same status, as stated, they are different Courts. It also follows that the Judges appointed to those Courts exercise varying jurisdictions, depending upon the particular Courts to which they were appointed. From a reading of the statutes regulating the specialized Courts, it is a logical inference, in our view, that their jurisdictions are limited to the matters provided for in those statutes. Such an inference is reinforced by and flows from Article 165(5) of the Constitution, which prohibits the High Court from exercising jurisdiction in respect of matters “reserved for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under this Constitution; or (b) falling within the jurisdiction of the Courts contemplated in Article 162(2).”
8. The jurisdictional relationship between the courts of equal status and the high court is provided under Article 165(4) 6 provides as doth: -
“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.”
9. The Application seeks orders to quash a decision of a superior court. The court has no jurisdiction to do so. I have reminded litigants that one you lose in a high court or court of equal status, you move to the court of Appeal. It is peopled with eminent judges who sit in benches of three or more. Their wisdom will guide.
10. This is also one of the cases, that points to the place of quacks in the society. They have misled the applicant to file this application. The Supreme Court decisions in the matter of Interim Independent Electoral Commission (2011)eKLR and Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another Vs KCB & 2 Others (2012)eKLR warn that a Court may not arrogate to itself Jurisdiction through the craft of Incorporation, or by way of endeavours to discern or interpret the intentions of part/point where the worldly of Legislation is clear and there is no ambiguity.
11. This court has no jurisdiction to grant the orders sought. Consequently, the application is stuck out with no order as to costs as service has not been done. The file is closed.