Orange Democratic Movement v National Treasury , Cabinet Secretary for National Assembly, Registrar of Political Parties & National Assembly [2017] KEHC 7803 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.  483 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY ORANGE DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW AND ORDERS OF MANDAMUS

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES   FUND ESTABLISHED UNDER THE POLITICAL PARTIES ACT, 2011

AND

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 1, 4(2), 10, 38, 95(4), 201(a) and 201(b) (iii) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA

BETWEEN

ORANGE DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT .APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE NATIONAL TREASURY……………………………..1ST RESPONDENT

CABINET SECRETARY FOR

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ………….……………………….2NDRESPONDENT

REGISTRAR OF POLITICAL PARTIES ……………….3RD RESPONDENT

THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY………………..…………..  4TH RESPONDENT

RULING ON LEAVE

(To apply for judicial review orders of Mandamus)

1. By an amended chamber summons dated 2nd   November   2016 and filed in court on 9th November 2016, the applicant   Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) seeks from this court  orders of:

a) to apply for Judicial Review Orders of Mandamus   compelling the respondents to forthwith allocate, appropriate  and  disburse  to the  applicant  the sum of   kshs  4,135,903,545 and or such  other outstanding  amount lawfully  due to the  applicant  under  the  Political Parties  Fund;  such amount being not less  than  40%  of  95%  of not  less than  0. 3 of the total revenue  collected  by the National  Government during  the period between 2012 and 2016 less the sum of kshs  501,575,919  which  has been received by Orange Democratic Movement during  the same  period.

b) Directors do issue for the urgent hearing and determination of this application upon grant   of leave.

c) The costs of this application be costs in the cause.

2. The chamber summons is predicated upon the statutory   statement and the matters   set out in the verifying affidavit of Oduor Ongwen sworn on 2nd November   2016.

3. According to the applicant, it is a duly registered political party as established under Article 38 of the Constitution of Kenya.

4. That the applicant  is  entitled  as a matter of right,  and pursuant  to Section  24  of the Political  Parties Act, 2011, to receive  funds from  the Political  Parties  Fund  established  under the Act.

5. That following the outcome  of the  2013 general elections, the applicant  is entitled  to  at least  40%  of the  funds required to be  distributed to Political  Parties  pursuant to Section  25(a)  of the Act.

6. That the aforesaid funding is essential to the applicant for purposes of:

a) Promoting the representation in Parliament and in the County Assemblies of women, persons with disabilities, Youth Ethnic and other minorities and marginalized communities.

b) Promoting active participation by individuals citizens in  political life:

c) Covering its election expenses and the broadcasting   of its policies.

d) Organization by the applicant of civic education in democracy and other electoral processes.

e) Bringing  the applicant’s influence  to bear  on the shaping of public  opinion; and

f) Administrative and staff   expenses of the applicant.

7. It is averred  that the Political  Parties Fund  is entitled  to receive   from the National  Government  such funds  not being  less than  zero point three percent ( 0. 3% ) of the revenue  collected as may be provided by Parliament, and contributions and  donations  to the Fund from any other  sources.

8. That contrary to the Act, the Fund has, since its   establishment   in  2011 been  receiving  from  the National  Treasury only about 0. 03% of the revenue collected by the National Government.

9. That for the years 2012/2013; 2013/2014; 2014/2015 and   2015/2016, the total revenue received by the National Government is approximately 4,284,478,728,351 (trillion).  Therefore, that  in accordance with the Political  Parties Act, during the  same  period, the  Fund should have received  at least  kshs  12,853,436,185. 00 being  0. 3%  of the National  Revenue.

10. That in accordance with the Act, 95% of kshs  12,853,436,185. 00 should  have been distributed   to the  political  parties  including  the applicant  who qualify  to receive  funding from  the Fund.  That the applicant is entitled to receive and should have  received  at least  40%  of this amount  during the said  financial  years.

11. That contrary to the Act and legitimate expectation of the applicant, it has only received   shs 501,575,919 during the same period and that the outstanding sum is kshs 4,135,903,545. 00 due to the applicant, based on the total national revenue collected.

12. The applicant laments that  refusal/failure  to allocate , appropriate  and  or disburse   all the funds   due to the  applicant undermines   democracy, the Rule of Law and the objectives  for which  the  Fund  was  established.

13. That the Republic of Kenya  being  a multiparty  democratic   state, failure  and or refusal  to allocate, appropriate  and or disburse  all the funds  due to the applicant  and other  political  parties under the Fund undermines the Constitution, the sovereign   power of the people  and  democratic  governance.

14. In addition, it is alleged that the right of  citizens  to make   political choices guaranteed under Article  38 of the Constitution  are also contravened  and undermined  hence the  application is in the  public interest   and  ought to be  heard and  determined  expeditiously because as a result of the underfunding,  the applicant has been  unable  to undertake   its core  mandate  and to  utilize  the funds  to which it is  entitled  by law to  achieve  the objectives  outlined  herein above.

15. It is further  stated that  the general   elections   are barely  a year  away and that the applicant’s ability  to prepare   and  participate meaningfully  and effectively  is greatly  affected  by the lack of  funding.

16. Further, that the respondents are acting illegally and unlawfully by failing to adhere to the provisions of the Constitution and the Political Parties Act.

17. That the  respondents  are acting ultra vires  the Constitution and the Political Parties  Act by unlawfully allocating, appropriating   and  or disbursing  funds  less than  the  amount stipulated  by law.

18. That the respondents have no power and authority to determine how much to allocate, appropriate or disburse to the Fund when the amount is established by law.

19. It is further alleged that the  respondents have  therefore  acted  irresponsibly, arbitrarily, capriciously and unreasonably and  that their  action frustrates  and  undermines  the applicant’s  ability to  execute  its constitutionally  enshrined   mandate.

20. Further, that the respondents’ conduct   is aimed   at unlawfully and illegally weakening the power and ability of political parties to operate, grow and participate meaningfully in the democratic governance of the country.

21. It is also  claimed that the respondent’s  decision is unlawfully  and  illegally aimed at undermining   the ability of the  applicant  to bring  its influence  to bear on the shaping  of public opinion  by starving the applicant of   the funds which is unjustifiable and unacceptable in a democratic society.

22. The exparte applicant also  relied on exhibits annexed  including  certificate  of  full  registration  of the applicant as a political party on 18th April  2012;  IEBC  records  showing three  national  parties  qualifying  for funds from  the Political  Parties  Fund; Election  results  for  President  in  the 2013  March Elections; summary of  all elective  positions  in the March  4th 2013  elections  in Kenya; summary  report of  the  Auditor General  on the  appropriation  accounts, other public  accounts  and of the  funds  of the Republic of  Kenya for   the year  2011/2012   financial year;202/2013;2013/2014;  2014/2015; correspondence between the  applicant and  the  Registrar  of  Political Parties; Budget  presentation to the Parliamentary Committee on  Justice and  Legal  Affairs  for  2015/2016 financial year.

23. The chamber Summons by the applicant was ordered to be considered   inter parties.  The applicant   dutifully effected service of the application upon the respondents   and interested parties as directed by the court.

24. On  13th January  2017  the  4th Respondent  (National Assembly )  filed grounds of  opposition dated  12th January  2017  through the  firm of  S.N. Mwendwa  advocate  contending  that:

1. The prayers  sought by the  applicant  are  too general  and vague  and  fails to disclose  to the court what  end the  Judicial Review remedies  of Mandamus   would be applied in the  event that  the  leave sought is  granted;

2. The applicant had not exhausted all the remedies   available of   resolving the matter so as to apply for Judicial Review;

3. This  court lacks jurisdiction to issue  the  orders sought   against the National Assembly  in that Article  95(4)  of the Constitution mandates the National Assembly to exercise legislative functions and does not exercise any administrative  functions or its  action in quasi  judicial  capacity thus the matter complained about by the  applicant  is outside the purview of Judicial Review;

4. That the applicant  has not demonstrated  to this court  that the grounds upon  which Judicial  Review  can be sought, have been  met and therefore  this court ought to  decline to exercise  its powers  of Judicial Review;

5. The applicant relies on frivolous, vexatious  and  hopeless  grounds  to seek  a  prerogative  order against  the  National Assembly, which is contrary to Article 95 of the  Constitution.

25. The  1st   respondent  and   2nd respondent  made an appearance    through Mr Munene of the Office of the Attorney General and Department of Justice  but the  3rd respondent  and the interested  parties did  not participate  in these proceedings.

26. The application   was canvassed  orally  with Senator   James  Aggrey  Orengo  appearing   and  urging the  chamber summons  on behalf of  the  applicant, jointly  with Ms Julie Soweto, Mr Magaya  and  Mr Alex Muchiri  whereas Mr Munene  submitted on  behalf of the  1st and  2nd   respondents and  Mr Mwendwa submitted   on behalf  of the  4th respondent, the National Assembly.

27. In his comprehensive submissions, Honourable Senator Orengo submitted, relying on the amended chamber summons, statutory statement and verifying affidavit   together with the annexed exhibits.

28. In his view, the applicant   had established   that there was a public legal duty owed by the respondents to allocate, appropriate and disburse the political party funds as stipulated in the law.

29. Further, that Article 95(4),(a) and (b) of the Constitution  mandates  the  National Assembly  to determine  the appropriate  funds for  allocation and  that the  4th respondent   therefore is  under a duty   to appropriate funds for  expenditure   to the  3rd  respondent  Registrar of  Political  Parties, and to  pay to the  applicant their  entitlement   as appropriate.

30. Further, that the function of the National Assembly is not just legislative but appropriates funds and exercises oversight   functions over such expenditure.  That Articles 220 & 221  of the Constitution vests  upon the  1st , 2nd and  4th  respondent  a duty to  oversee  on how  money is  raised, allocated  and  disbursed  to various  state organs.

31. According to the applicant, its  complaint   is that money  has not been   paid into  the political  parties Fund  and  that albeit the  3rd respondent Registrar of Political Parties  has been   petitioning  the National  Treasury  to pay into the  Fund,  the disbursement   over the years   have not been done  in  accordance  with the law  which stipulate that  an  amount should  not be less that  0. 3  %  of the National  Revenue and distributed between qualifying  political parties   as required  under Section  24  of the Political  Parties Act.

32. Reliance  was  placed on CA  80/2014  Political Parties Forum Coalition  & Others  Vs Registrar  of Political Parties  & Others  CA 80 OF 2014(2016)Eklr where the Court of Appeal  acknowledged  the role of the National Assembly  in appropriation  and  allocation of monies.

33. Further, that  correspondence   exchanged  between the applicant    and  the Registrar  of Political  Parties  show the   role of the  National Treasury & the Cabinet Secretary  in charge of Treasury  acknowledged  in the disbursement  of National  Revenue  once money   is appropriated.

34. In Hon Senator  Orengo’s  view, there is an arguable case which is  prima facie  for the  exercise of this court’s  jurisdiction  and discretion in  granting  leave as sought  in order to  minimize  any access  to the courts  by litigants  who may  come before  the court   with frivolous   or statute   barred  or openly  without  any legal foundation or basis.

35. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that mandamus is located where the duty is proclaimed or stipulated in the law and where it is shown that the applicant’s actions are ultra vires  the law.

36. Counsel for the applicant urged the court to grant leave and issue directions for the matter to be heard expeditiously as the budget process has begun.

37. In brief  response, Mr Munene   counsel for the   1st and  2nd     respondents   opposed the  application  for leave  and  submitted  that   the  1st and  2nd respondents have no  specific   duty towards  the applicant which this court  can compel  its  performance   and that therefore  the  orders sought   might end up  being paper   judgment  incapable of  enforcement.  Further, that the only specific duty is against the 3rd respondent Registrar of Political Parties.

38. Mr Munene urged this court to dismiss the application against the 1st and 2nd respondents.

39. In response  on behalf of the  4th respondent  National Assembly, Mr Mwendwa opposed the applicant’s application and  maintained that the  role of the National Assembly  under Article  92(f)  and  Article   95  of the Constitution  relates  to legislation  and  appropriation of funds  which obligations it has not failed to perform.

40. That the  4th respondent  has enacted   the Political Parties Act as required and appropriated  funds towards  funding  of political  parties and  that as to  whether funds  are appropriated  in accordance  with the  Political Parties  Act  is a matter of Evidence and  Judicial  Review remedies  cannot apply in legislative matters but by way of constitutional  interpretation on validity.

41. Mr Mwendwa sub mitted that since the various appropriations have not been   declared unconstitutional, there is no prima facie case.  That it is a matter of fact that there is a dispute as to the revenue collected.  That the National Assembly  does not  exercise  quasi  Judicial functions  or administrative powers   under Articles 206, 220 and 221 of the  Constitution and that this is a pure claim  for money had and  received  by the National  Treasury  which cannot  be claimed  through   Judicial Review.

42. It was further submitted on be half of the 4th respondent that there was no claim that the National Assembly had acted illegally, irrationally or ultra vires hence it will not be proper for this court to exercise jurisdiction and issue Judicial Review Orders since the applicants can seek Constitutional Declarations and only come for Judicial Review if there is an   order on facts.  Mr Mwendwa   urged this court to dismiss the application with costs.

43. In a brief  rejoinder Hon Senator  Orengo submitted that the 4th respondent  had completely misapprehended the decision  in CA80 /2014  [2016]eKLR which involved  a complaint  by parties which  did not  qualify   to get any allocations from  the Political Parties  Fund  and  they went  to court on the question of discrimination  and violation  of political rights; and that   the court made  it clear that it could not  rewrite  the law as that was the role of  Parliament   and that the applicant  could seek  to amend the law to enable   them qualify  for  funding.

44. Counsel for the applicant denied   that this   was a question of money had and  received  but failure to perform  a legal duty  to  allocate   and  appropriate   and that the Financial  Management Act stipulates  how public finances are  to be  expended by public bodies  in the performance  of functions allocated by Parliament.

45. It  was  submitted that the respondent  had made  a case that   Parliament  and  the National Treasury were not  acting in  accordance  with the law  to enable  the  Registrar  of Political Parties to administer   the Fund and  that  in CA  80/2014   the court  located  the   duty to Parliament.  Further, that the reports by the controller of budget and the Auditor General show that money was allocated and spent.

46. It was submitted that this is a Fund which Parliament cannot ignore.  Further, that Article 221 of the Constitution   is clear on the duty of the Cabinet Secretary for the National Treasury.  Counsel for the applicant urged the court to grant the orders sought for leave to apply for Judicial Review orders of mandamus.

Determination

47. I have carefully considered the applicant’s chamber summons, verifying affidavit, statutory statement and annextures.  I have  also considered the  4th respondent’s grounds  of opposition and the parties’  respective   counsels’  able oral  submissions both in support  of and  in  opposition  to the  application for leave.

48. The main issue for determination is whether   the leave sought to apply for judicial review order of mandamus is available   to the applicant.

49. The purpose for application for leave to apply  for Judicial Review orders was explained  by a three  judge bench  of Honourable   Justices Bosire, Mbogholi Msagha  & Oguk JJ in  Matiba Vs Attorney  General  Nairobi  HCC Miscellaneous  Application No. 790 of  1993  in which the Court of Appeal   held that  it is   supposed to assist the court   eliminate  frivolous, vexatious  or applications which prima facie  appear to be  abuse of the process of the court or those applications  which are  statute   barred.

50. In Republic Vs Land Disputes Tribunal Court Central Division and Another Exparte Nzioka[2006] 1EA 321,Nyamu  J (as  he then  was) held that  leave should  be granted, if  on the material  available the court considers, without  going into the matter in-depth, that  there is  an arguable  case for  granting   leave and  that leave  stage   is a filter whose purpose  is to weed out hopeless   cases at the earliest  possible   time,  thus saving   the pressure on the courts and needless expense for the applicant by allowing malicious and futile claims  to be weeded  out or  eliminated  so as to  prevent public bodies being paralyzed  for months  because of pending  court action  which   might turn  out  to be unmerited.

51. The Court of Appeal in Mexner & Another V Attorney  General [2005]  2 KLR  189  held that  leave of the court is prerequisite  to making  substantive application for  Judicial Review  and that the  purposes of the leave is  to filter  out frivolous applications  hence the granting  of leave  or  otherwise involves  an exercise  of  judicial discretion  which must  be exercised  judiciously and not capriciously.

52. Earlier on in Mirugi Kariuki vs Attorney General CA 79/1991[1990-1994] EA 156 the Court of Appeal held:

“ If he  [the applicant]  fails  to show, when he applies for  leave, a prima facie case, on reasonable  grounds  for believing   that there  has been a  failure  of public  duty, the court  would be  in error  if it   granted leave.  The curb presented   by the need for the applicant  to show,  when he seeks leave to apply, that he  has a case,  in an  essential  protection  against abuse  of the legal process.  It enables   the court to prevent   abuse by   busy bodies, cranks and other mischief- makers.”

“ Application  for leave to apply  for orders of  Judicial Review  are normally  made exparte and such application  does restrict  he court to threshold  issues  namely, whether  the applicant  has an arguable  case, and  whether  if leave is  granted, the same should operate as stay.  Whereas Judicial Review   remedies are at the end of the day discretionary, that discretion  is a judicial discretion and, for this reason, a court   has to explain how the discretion, if any, was  exercised   so that all the parties  are aware  if  the factors   which led  to the exercise  of the court’s  discretion.  There should  be an  arguable  case which  without delving  into the details  could  succeed   and  an arguable  case is not  ascertained   by  the court  by tossing   a coin or waving a magic wand  or raising a green  flag,  the ascertainment of an arguable   case is an  intellectual  exercise  in this fast growing area of  the  laws and  one had  to consider  without  making any findings, the scope of the judicial remedy sought, the grounds and the, possible principles of  administrative  law involved and not  forget the ever expanding  frontiers  of judicial review and  perhaps  give an applicant  his day in court  instead of denying him. Although  leave should  not be granted  as a  matter of  course or routine, where  one  is in doubt  one has to consider  the wise  words of  Megarry, J  in  the case of John  vs Rees  [1970] ch,345 at  402, that  in the exercise  of the discretion on whether or not  to grant leave, the court takes  into  account the needs of good  administration.”

53. In Republic vs County Council of Kwale & Another exparte Kondo& 57 Others Mombasa HCC Miscellaneous Application No. 384 of 1996 the court (Waki J) as he then was   stated:

“ The  purpose of  application for leave  to apply for  Judicial Review is firstly to eliminate at an early stage any  applications for Judicial Review  which are either  frivolous, vexatious  or hopeless  and secondly, to ensure that the  applicant  is   only allowed to proceed to substantive hearing if the court is satisfied  that there is a case fit for further consideration.  The requirement  that leave must  be  obtained  before making  an application for  Judicial Review  is  designed  to prevent   the time of  the court being wasted  by busy bodies  with misguided  or trivial complaints  or  administrative  error, and to remove  the uncertainty in which  public officers and  authorities  might be left as to whether they could safely proceed with administrative action while  proceedings for Judicial  Review  of it  were actually pending  even though  misconceived.  Leave  may only  be  granted, therefore  if on the material available  the court  is of the view, without going into the matter in depth, that there is an arguable case for granting the relief   claimed by the applicant, the test being whether there is a case fit for further investigation at a full interpartes hearing of the  substantive  application  for  judicial review.  It is an exercise of the court’s discretion but as always, it has to be exercised judicially.”

54. From the above  plethora  of decisions, it clearly  emerges that the  grant of  leave to institute  Judicial Review  proceeding   is not  a mere formality  and  or as a  matter of course.  The  person applying  for leave  is  under an  obligation to demonstrate  to the court  that they  have a prima facie  arguable  case for grant   of such leave.

55. However, as the authorities speak, the applicant is not required at the leave stage to delve into the in depths of the application.  They need to demonstrate   that the application   is not frivolous, malicious and futile or that the applicant has not come to court after an unexplained inordinate   delay.

56. In the instant   case, and  without  necessarily   delving  into the merits of the intended application, the applicants Orange Democratic Party (ODM) claims that the respondents have defaulted in the performance of their constitutional and  statutory   duties of  appropriating, allocating  and administering   the  funds meant for political  parties through  the Political Parties Fund  as established  under the Political  Parties Act, 2011, and  in  accordance with  the  stipulations   under  the Act  which failure has affected the rights and interests of the  applicant  hence the need for the court’s  intervention to compel the  performance  of that public duty stipulated  in the law.

57. Judicial Review  Order  of Mandamus  is issued  to compel the  performance  of a public  duty where  the obligation  arises out of the  official status of the respondent.  It  is applicable in cases  where the duty  is imposed  by law  for the benefit  of an individual  provided  there is no more  appropriate  alternative  remedy(see Shah Vs Attorney General No.3 Kampala  HCMC  31/1969[1970]  EA  543.

58. In Joham Mulati Welamondi vs ICK Bungoma HC Miscellaneous Application 81/2002 it was held that  Mandamus  is a remedy for compelling  a person to perform  a duty imposed on him  by statute   which duty  he has  refused to perform  to the detriment  of  the applicant.

59. In Kenya National Examinations Council (KNEC) Vs Republic  Exparte  Geoffrey  Gathenji  Njoroge   & Others  the Court of Appeal  held that Mandamus  is a command requiring a person to do some particular thing specified which  appertains  to his or  her office  and is in the nature of a public duty  and  its purpose is to remedy  the defects   of justice.  It is   issued so that the ends of justice may be in all cases where there is a specific legal right or no specific   legal remedy for enforcing   that right.  Therefore, even   where there  is no statutory  provision obliging  an authority  to act,  where the  case meets the  criteria  herein above, mandamus   may go forth.

60. In the instant case, Article 206 of the Constitution establishes the Consolidated Fund and other public funds.

61. The other  public funds are established by  an Act of  Parliament   and in this case,  Section  23 of the Political  Parties Act, 2011 establishes  the Political  Parties Fund  which is administered  by the Registrar  of Political  Parties, in accordance   with Section   24 of the Act.

62. The Act   also provides for  purposes  of the fund  under  Section 24  thereof and  for specific  budget allocation to the  Fund by the National  Treasury  which is  0. 3%  of the National  Revenue to be shared between  or among  qualifying  political parties  as per the  provisions  of  Section  26  of the Political  Parties Act.

63. In other words,  the  percentage %  and formula  for distribution of the Political  Parties  Fund is  stipulated  by law and not a mere  factual  issue  and   as to how that  Fund is to be utilized  is also  regulated  by the Political  Parties Act  under the supervision   of the Registrar  of  Political  Parties, being the administrator of the Fund.

64. On the other hand, it is the  duty of the Cabinet Secretary  for the National Treasury to submit to the National  Assembly estimates  of the Revenue   and Expenditure  of the  National Government   for the next financial  year to be tabled before the  National Assembly for consideration after discussion by committee  of the Assembly and review of the estimates and make  recommendations to the Assembly( see Article 221 of the Constitution).

65. Political Parties perform important functions without which   representative democracy could not exist.  They offer   alternative policies  from which  voters  choose  at  elections, organize  campaigns  to mobilize  voters   and  field candidates  for  public  office.  They may be unpopular but there is absolutely no better alternative way of organizing for democracy which is guaranteed by the Constitution and therefore the will of the people of Kenya.

66. Democracy is one of the national values  and  principles  of governance  espoused  in Article  10 of the Constitution.

67. Political parties, undoubtedly  constitute   engines  of democratic political  systems for they encourage and enhance competition between societal groups and interests.  They are the only effective mechanism by which ordinary people ’wanjiku’ can have any personal contact with the body politic.

68. Representative democracy cannot operate effectively without strong and healthy political parties.  It is  for that reason  that Part 3  of the Chapter  Seven  of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 is dedicated to political  parties and  under Article   92(f) thereof, Parliament  is mandated  to enact  legislation  to provide   for the establishment   and  Management  of a Political  Parties Fund.

69. Article 94 of the Constitution espouses the role of Parliament whereas Article 95 is on the role of the National Assembly.

70. The legislative function of the National Assembly is only but one of the important functions of the National Assembly.  It is   not the only role.  The National Assembly has  many more   equally important  roles   under the Constitution including determination of allocation of national revenue between the levels of government, appropriation of funds for expenditure by the National Government and other national state organs, exercises  oversight over national  state organs, exercises oversight  over national  revenue  and  its  expenditure; exercises  oversight  of state  organs; among other  non legislature  functions/roles.

71. It follows therefore,  that  any  question about  political parties  is a question  of quality  governance  of any country that   believes  in democracy   and hence the   financing  of political  parties  is a critical  issue   for  ensuring   good governance.

72. Therefore, it cannot be said that the application by   the applicant is frivolous, vexatious    or that prima facie, the applicant is seeking for a paper judgment or money had and   received.  That   argument by Mr Munene, in my  humble view, is belittling  of the constitutionally  espoused  institutions  and the roles that  these  institutions  play in the governance  of this   great nation   of Kenya.

73. Albeit the parties to these proceedings have delved so much into the merits of the intended   application, it is not within the province of this court to delve into the depths of the application.

74. However, I must  satisfy  myself that the  applicant  has  an arguable   prima  facie  case and   that is why  I have  attempted to analyze  what   the  parties  have placed before me  to illustrate that the respondent  have not  only constitutional but statutory  mandates   to  ensure that the political   parties   Fund functions effectively  as  envisaged  in the Constitution  and  in the Political  Parties Act, 2011.

75. Borrowing  the words in  Republic  vs Secretary  of state for Home Department  Exparte  Venebles  [1998] AC 407,

“ a person on whom  power is conferred  cannot fetter   the future  exercise  of its discretion  by  committing  himself   now  as to the way  in which he will exercise   his power……By the same  token, the person  on whom  power   has been conferred  cannot fetter  the  way  in which he  will  use that   power by  ruling out  of consideration on the future  exercise of power, factors  which  may be relevant to that  exercise.”

76. It therefore  follows that   where there  is an allegation  that a body is not   properly  exercising  its power  or statutory  or constitutional  mandate, thereby  leading  to possible  abuse  without  legal justification, the court  will be called  upon to  investigate  into  the matter  to establish   whether  the legal  duty is  being performed  in accordance  with the law  and  for that  reason,  I find that this  is a proper case   for  such  indepth  investigation.

77. It should be  noted that  judicial  review  remedies  are powerful  enforcers  of constitutionalism, one of the  greatest  promoters  of the  rule of  law and  one of the  most powerful tools  against  abuse of power and arbitrariness(see Republic V Commissioner General  KRA  Nairobi  JR  340/2012  ( citing with  approval  Re Bivac  International  SA Bureau  Veritas (supra).

78. Therefore, as long as there  is  prima facie   evidence   that  there exists  a public  duty imposed  by statute  in the fulfillment  of which  some other  person  has an interest,  the court has  jurisdiction  to entertain  the prayer  for mandamus   to compel  the fulfillment.

79. The law expects that statutory   power be exercised fairly and Parliament must be presumed    not to legislate contrary to the rule of law. It also expects that the enacted laws are implemented to the letter.

80. The rule of law enforces minimum standards of fairness, both substantive   and procedural.  The allegation that the respondents  are not fulfilling  the  requirements  of the  provisions of the Political  Parties   Act with  regard to the  0. 3 %  percentage  of total national revenue  collected  which is ascertainable, being  allocated  and approved  to the Political Parties  Fund is  sufficient ground to establish  prima facie  arguable  case since  the actual  amount of   revenue   collected by the National Government  annually  is a matter   of public knowledge  as it is always  published  in the Kenya Gazette  notice hence  it cannot  be  said that   Parliament  can be mandated by Article 92 of  the Constitution to enact  legislation  on political  parties   and  establish a fund  which is  stuffed with plain blank paper, when Article  3 (1)  of the Constitution is clear that  every person  without  exception, has an  obligation  to respect,  uphold  and  defend  the  Constitution.  The Political Parties Act, 2011 which was enacted after promulgation of the Constitution is one of the implementing Acts of the Constitution and therefore it is expected that the Act is implemented.

81. The Supreme  Court in Zacharia  Okoth Obado Vs Edward Okong’o Oyugi & 2 Others [2014] e KLRemphasized that;

“ Article  3 (1)  of the Constitution  imposes  an obligation on everyone, without  exception, to respect,  uphold   and  defend  the Constitution.  This obligation is further  emphasized  with  regard  to the exercise  of judicial authority, by Article  159(2)  which requires  that in the  exercise of judicial authority  the courts   must pay  heed  to the  purposes  and principles  of the Constitution being  protected  and  promoted.  However, all statutes flow from the constitution, and all acts done have to be anchored in law and be constitutional, lest they be declared   unconstitutional, hence null and void.  Thus, it cannot be said that this court   cannot stop a constitutionally guided process……..”

82. On whether the  role of Parliament  can be interfered  with by the court, the case of Republic  vs  Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & Another Exparte Selex  Sistemi Integrata  Nairobi HC Miscellaneous  Application  1260/2007  is instructive where Nyamu J (as he then was) stated:

“To exempt a public authority from the jurisdiction of the courts of law is,   to that extent, to grant doctorial powers.  It is no exaggeration, therefore, to describe this as an abuse of power of Parliament speaking constitutionally.  This is the justification  for the strong, it  might even be  rebellious  stand which the courts have made against allowing Acts of  Parliament to create  pockets  of  uncontrollable   power in  violation of the rule of law.  Parliament is unduly addicted  to this practice giving too much weight to temporary convenience and too little to constitutional principle.

The law’s delay together with its uncertainty and expense, tempts governments to take short cuts by elimination of the courts.  But if  the courts  are prevented  from enforcing the law, the  remedy   becomes   worse than the  decease.”

83. I cant  agree more   with the learned judge’s  observations. In the instant  case, the court  finds  that it is arguable  as to  whether  the respondents   have any  discretion  in the manner in which  the  Political Parties  Fund  ought to be  funded, managed and or   distributed, being  not less than  0. 3 %  of the revenue collected  by the National Government  as may be  provided by Parliament, as stipulated  in Sections  24  and   25 of  the Political  Parties Act.

84. For all  the above reasons, I find that the application for leave to apply  for Judicial  Review  Order of Mandamus  is merited.

85. Albeit the  4th respondent   claimed that there  was  an alternative remedy which ought to have been sought by way of constitutional  interpretation  for  Declaration, it is clear that the applicant’s claim is the performance of statutory duty to allocate, appropriate  and  disburse  or distribute  the Political   Parties  Fund  in accordance  with the established formula  under the Political Parties Act.

86. And  since the applicant’s  claim is  that of  entitlement  in order to   enforce   and  advance political  rights which  are guaranteed   under Article  38  of the Constitution,  those rights  are enforceable under Article  22 of the  Constitution and  the courts  are obliged by Article   23  of the Constitution  to uphold   and  enforce   those rights  under the Bill  of Rights, the  Political  Rights  inclusive.  And in the enforcement   of such rights, the court is given latitude to grant appropriate relied including    a declaration of rights; and an order   of Judicial Review is one of the remedies, among others.

87. Accordingly, I find the applicant’s chamber summons dated 2nd November 2016 merited.  I grant prayer No.B of the chamber summons as prayed.

88. I further order that  the substantive  notice of motion  shall be   filed and  served within  7 days  from the date  of this order  of leave, together with  skeletal written  submissions and list and bundle of authorities.

89. As the  application  was considered  interpartes, the respondents and  interested parties  have  7 days   from the date of   service  to file and serve their replying affidavits together with their  submissions   in writing  and  a   list and bundle   of authorities   to be relied upon.

The matter shall be mentioned on 6th February 2017   to confirm   compliance   and for directions.

Costs shall be in the cause.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 19th day of   January 2017.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Miss Julie Soweto for the applicant also h/b for Senator James Orengo

Mr Munene for the 1st and 2nd respondents

Miss Otieno h/b for Mr Mwendwa for the 4th respondent

N/A for the 3rd respondent

CA: George