REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION
PETITION NO. E390 OF 2025
THE LAW SOCIETY OF KENYA…………………………1 ST PEITIONER
KENYA EDITORS’ GUILD……………………………....2 ND PETITIONER
CommunicationS Authority Of Kenya……1 st Respondent
Attorney General………………………………...2 nd Respondent
and
ROYAL MEDIA SERVICES……………………1 ST Interested Party
.
NATION MEDIA GROUP……………………...2 ND Interested Party
MEDIA MAX NETWORK LIMITED…………3 RD INTERESTED PARTY
RADIO AFRICA GROUP……………………....4 TH INTERESTED PARTY
STANDARD CHARTERD PLC………………...5 TH INTERESTED PARTY
KENYA NATIONAL COMMISSION
ON HUMAN RIGHTS…………………………...6 TH INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
1. In Republic & 2 others v Director General, Communication Authority Of Kenya & 2 others; Kenya Union of Journalists & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Judicial Review E176 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 17496 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (27 November 2025) (Judgment), the exparte applicants, Katiba Institute and the Kenya Human Rights Commission sought the following reliefs:
e Application before this court for determination is dated 25th June, 2025 wherein The Applicants are seeking the following Orders:
a. This Application be certified urgent and heard on a priority basis in the first instance.
b. Pending the hearing and determination of this Application inter-parties, a Conservatory Order issue suspending the implementation of the Memo Ref No. CA/CE/BC/TV 90 a purporting to direct all television and radio stations to stop any live coverage of the demonstrations.
c. Pending the hearing and determination of this Application, A conservatory order issue directing the Respondents to restore the signals of the TV and Radio stations that were deplatformed following the CA’s directive.
d. Pending the hearing and determination of the Application, A conservatory order issue restraining the Respondents, or any officer subordinate to the Director General of the Communication Authority from enforcing or acting on the Memo Ref No. CA/CE/BC/TV 90 a purporting to direct all television and radio stations to stop any live coverage of the demonstrations.
e. Pending the hearing and determination of the Application, the 1st and 2nd Respondents cause to be published to the public a notice suspending the Memo Ref No. CA/CE/BC/TV 90 A.
f. Grant of Judicial Review orders including:
i. An order of Prohibition restraining the Respondents from enforcing the decision of 25 June 2025 as contained in Memo Ref No. CA/CE/BC/TV 90 A.
ii. An order of Certiorari to bring to this Court and to quash the Communication Authority’s decision of 25 June 2025 directing Television and Radio stations not the demonstrations.
iii. Costs of the litigation to deter CA’s repeated attempts at censorship of Kenyan media.”
2. Vide judgment delivered on 27 th November, 2025 by Justice Chigiti, SC, the learned Judge held as follows:
Determination:
83.The Application has merit.
Order:
1.An order of Certiorari is hereby issued bringing to this Court quashing the Communication Authority’s decision of 25 June 2025.
2.An order of Prohibition restraining the Respondents from enforcing the decision of 25 June 2025 as contained in Memo Ref No. CA/CE/BC/TV 90 A is hereby issued.
3.No orders as to costs.
3. In the present petition dated 25 th June, 2025, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:
i. A declaration that the directive dated 25 th June, 2025 (Ref No. CA/CE/BC/TV 90A) by the Communications Authority of Kenya is unconstitutional, unlawful, null and void
ii. A declaration that the said directive violates Articles 33,34,35, and 47 of the Constitution\.
iii. A declaration that the 1 st Respondent acted ultra vires its statutory and constitutional mandate.
iv. A conservatory order suspending the said directive.
v. An order of certiorari to quash the directive in its entity.
vi. An order prohibiting the 1 st respondent from issuing similar directives without due process and constitutional safeguards.
vii. Costs of the petition.
viii. Any other relief this honourable court may deem fit in the interest of justice.
4. The two cases were filed in different divisions of the High Court at different times but thy both challenge the directive of the 1 st respondent Communications Authority of Kenya issued on 25 th June, 2025 to stop live coverage of the June 25 th 2025 nationwide demonstrations.
5. Save for the declaration, all the other prayers are the same and have the same effect.
6. This fact was brought to the attention of the petitioners in this case but the petitioners’ counsel insisted on prosecuting the petition.
7. Without belaboring so much and wasting precious judicial time and resources, I find that the reliefs which the petitioners seek in this petition have already been granted in Judicial Review No. E176 of 2025. Judicial review is a constitutional remedy found in Article 23 of the Constitution and it has many facets when brought under Article 47 of the Constitution as operationalized by the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015 in the sense that even declarations can issue in judicial review proceedings.
8. The learned Judge not only quashed the directive. He also prohibited the 1 st respondent from issuing any such directive in future, for reasons that the directive was unconstitutional, null and void.
9. When a specific directive or decision is successfully quashed and prohibited in Judicial Review proceedings, the doctrine of res judicata, which mandates the finality of litigation and prevents the multiplicity of suits, generally bars a litigant from filing a Constitutional Petition to declare that identical directive unconstitutional.
10. The issues raised in the present proceedings were conclusively determined by the High Court in Judicial Review E176 of 20-25 and therefore the instant Petition amounts to an impermissible attempt to re-litigate matters already settled by a court of competent jurisdiction.
11. This Court does not see what else remained, after the judgement by Justice Chigiti, SC quashing the very directive which the petitioners in the present petition want to prosecute. Writing a judgment for academic purposes as opposed to making a judicial decision is not one of the mandates of this Court. This Court exercises judicial authority bestowed on it by the People of Kenya via Articles 1 and 159 of the Constitution.
12. Accordingly, I find and hold that the petition herein is res judicate Judicial review E176 of 2025 and for that reason, the petition dated 25 th June, 2025 is hereby struck out with no orders as to costs and this file is closed.
13. I so order.
Dated, Signed and Delivered virtually at Nairobi this 3 rd Day of July, 2026
R.E. ABURILI
JUDGE
Page 2 of 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION
PETITION NO. E390 OF 2025
THE LAW SOCIETY OF KENYA…………………………1 ST PEITIONER
KENYA EDITORS’ GUILD……………………………....2 ND PETITIONER
CommunicationS Authority Of Kenya……1 st Respondent
Attorney General………………………………...2 nd Respondent
and
ROYAL MEDIA SERVICES……………………1 ST Interested Party
.
NATION MEDIA GROUP……………………...2 ND Interested Party
MEDIA MAX NETWORK LIMITED…………3 RD INTERESTED PARTY
RADIO AFRICA GROUP……………………....4 TH INTERESTED PARTY
STANDARD CHARTERD PLC………………...5 TH INTERESTED PARTY
KENYA NATIONAL COMMISSION
ON HUMAN RIGHTS…………………………...6 TH INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
1. In Republic & 2 others v Director General, Communication Authority Of Kenya & 2 others; Kenya Union of Journalists & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Judicial Review E176 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 17496 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (27 November 2025) (Judgment), the exparte applicants, Katiba Institute and the Kenya Human Rights Commission sought the following reliefs:
e Application before this court for determination is dated 25th June, 2025 wherein The Applicants are seeking the following Orders:
a. This Application be certified urgent and heard on a priority basis in the first instance.
b. Pending the hearing and determination of this Application inter-parties, a Conservatory Order issue suspending the implementation of the Memo Ref No. CA/CE/BC/TV 90 a purporting to direct all television and radio stations to stop any live coverage of the demonstrations.
c. Pending the hearing and determination of this Application, A conservatory order issue directing the Respondents to restore the signals of the TV and Radio stations that were deplatformed following the CA’s directive.
d. Pending the hearing and determination of the Application, A conservatory order issue restraining the Respondents, or any officer subordinate to the Director General of the Communication Authority from enforcing or acting on the Memo Ref No. CA/CE/BC/TV 90 a purporting to direct all television and radio stations to stop any live coverage of the demonstrations.
e. Pending the hearing and determination of the Application, the 1st and 2nd Respondents cause to be published to the public a notice suspending the Memo Ref No. CA/CE/BC/TV 90 A.
f. Grant of Judicial Review orders including:
i. An order of Prohibition restraining the Respondents from enforcing the decision of 25 June 2025 as contained in Memo Ref No. CA/CE/BC/TV 90 A.
ii. An order of Certiorari to bring to this Court and to quash the Communication Authority’s decision of 25 June 2025 directing Television and Radio stations not the demonstrations.
iii. Costs of the litigation to deter CA’s repeated attempts at censorship of Kenyan media.”
2. Vide judgment delivered on 27 th November, 2025 by Justice Chigiti, SC, the learned Judge held as follows:
Determination:
83.The Application has merit.
Order:
1.An order of Certiorari is hereby issued bringing to this Court quashing the Communication Authority’s decision of 25 June 2025.
2.An order of Prohibition restraining the Respondents from enforcing the decision of 25 June 2025 as contained in Memo Ref No. CA/CE/BC/TV 90 A is hereby issued.
3.No orders as to costs.
3. In the present petition dated 25 th June, 2025, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:
i. A declaration that the directive dated 25 th June, 2025 (Ref No. CA/CE/BC/TV 90A) by the Communications Authority of Kenya is unconstitutional, unlawful, null and void
ii. A declaration that the said directive violates Articles 33,34,35, and 47 of the Constitution\.
iii. A declaration that the 1 st Respondent acted ultra vires its statutory and constitutional mandate.
iv. A conservatory order suspending the said directive.
v. An order of certiorari to quash the directive in its entity.
vi. An order prohibiting the 1 st respondent from issuing similar directives without due process and constitutional safeguards.
vii. Costs of the petition.
viii. Any other relief this honourable court may deem fit in the interest of justice.
4. The two cases were filed in different divisions of the High Court at different times but thy both challenge the directive of the 1 st respondent Communications Authority of Kenya issued on 25 th June, 2025 to stop live coverage of the June 25 th 2025 nationwide demonstrations.
5. Save for the declaration, all the other prayers are the same and have the same effect.
6. This fact was brought to the attention of the petitioners in this case but the petitioners’ counsel insisted on prosecuting the petition.
7. Without belaboring so much and wasting precious judicial time and resources, I find that the reliefs which the petitioners seek in this petition have already been granted in Judicial Review No. E176 of 2025. Judicial review is a constitutional remedy found in Article 23 of the Constitution and it has many facets when brought under Article 47 of the Constitution as operationalized by the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015 in the sense that even declarations can issue in judicial review proceedings.
8. The learned Judge not only quashed the directive. He also prohibited the 1 st respondent from issuing any such directive in future, for reasons that the directive was unconstitutional, null and void.
9. When a specific directive or decision is successfully quashed and prohibited in Judicial Review proceedings, the doctrine of res judicata, which mandates the finality of litigation and prevents the multiplicity of suits, generally bars a litigant from filing a Constitutional Petition to declare that identical directive unconstitutional.
10. The issues raised in the present proceedings were conclusively determined by the High Court in Judicial Review E176 of 20-25 and therefore the instant Petition amounts to an impermissible attempt to re-litigate matters already settled by a court of competent jurisdiction.
11. This Court does not see what else remained, after the judgement by Justice Chigiti, SC quashing the very directive which the petitioners in the present petition want to prosecute. Writing a judgment for academic purposes as opposed to making a judicial decision is not one of the mandates of this Court. This Court exercises judicial authority bestowed on it by the People of Kenya via Articles 1 and 159 of the Constitution.
12. Accordingly, I find and hold that the petition herein is res judicate Judicial review E176 of 2025 and for that reason, the petition dated 25 th June, 2025 is hereby struck out with no orders as to costs and this file is closed.
13. I so order.
Dated, Signed and Delivered virtually at Nairobi this 3 rd Day of July, 2026
R.E. ABURILI
JUDGE
Page 2 of 2