Republic v Cabinet Secretary Sports Culture and Arts, Attorney General, James Waweru, Moni Wekesa , Somane Muktar Ismail, Douglas Wakihuri & Alex Tunoi Exparte John Mavisi Okumu & Caroline Kola [2016] KEHC 2974 (KLR) | Judicial Review Procedure | Esheria

Republic v Cabinet Secretary Sports Culture and Arts, Attorney General, James Waweru, Moni Wekesa , Somane Muktar Ismail, Douglas Wakihuri & Alex Tunoi Exparte John Mavisi Okumu & Caroline Kola [2016] KEHC 2974 (KLR)

Full Case Text

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  230 OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR ORDERS OF CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION

AND

IN THE MATTER OF GAZETTE NOTICE NO.  58 OF 2015 9 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ANTI-DOPING AGENCY OF KENYA)

AND

IN THE MATER OF A JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION

BETWEEN

REPUBLIC………………………………………………........………….APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE CABINET SECRETARY SPORTS

CULTURE AND ARTS………………........……………………...1ST RESPONDENT

THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL…............…..…..2ND RESPONDENT

AND

JAMES WAWERU……………........…………………..1ST INTERESTED PARTY

DR. MONI WEKESA ………….....…………………...2ND INTERESTED PARTY

DR. SOMANE MUKTAR ISMAIL…......……………..3RD INTERESTED PARTY

DOUGLAS WAKIHURI…....…….……….……….......4TH INTERESTED PARTY

ALEX TUNOI…………….………………..……..…...5TH INTERESTED PARTY

EXPARTE

JOHN MAVISI OKUMU AND

CAROLINE KOLA

RULING

1. This ruling  determines the preliminary  objection  filed on  9th May  2016  by  the 2nd interested  party Professor  Moni Wekesa.  The said preliminary objection notice was amended on 16th May 2016. In the preliminary objection, the 2nd interested party contends that:

1. The gazette  notice No, 508/2015  the subject  matter of  this suit  was superseded by  legal notice  No. 256  dated  24th December  2015   as  annexed;

2. That legal Notice No. 256  dated  24th December  2015  on its part  has been replaced  by substantive legislation- the Anti- Doping Act, 2015 which  was assented to on 22nd  April  2016    and came   into effect  on 26th April 2016   as annexed.

3. That  the Gazette Notice  No. 508  of 2015, the basis of this suit  was revoked  by operation of law;

4. That the orders sought  by the  exparte  applicants  in their amended  Notice of Motion  and in particular, prayers  No. 1 and  2   have been spent;

5. That the continuance  of this suit  beyond  24th December  2015  and more particularly beyond    the 26th April  2016   when the Anti- Doping Law  took effect  is an abuse  of  the court process.

2. The  2nd interested  party  prayed that the  chamber summons dated  15th July  2015, the amended  notice of motion  dated  10th August  2015   and any vestiges  to the said   suit be  dismissed with  costs.

3. The preliminary objection  was argued  orally  before me  on 12th July  2016   with professor  Moni Wekesa  appearing in person  urging the  preliminary  objection.  He submitted that the exparte applicant  sought orders  to quash   the legal notice  No. 508  of 2015   and to  prohibit   the activities  based on  the said legal  notice, which application  for  judicial  review orders  of certiorari   and prohibition  was opposed by the interested  parties and  the respondents.  That his basis  of opposition to the said chamber  summons   was that the impugned  legal notice had been  overtaken by  events  to wit, two  other legal  notices  of  156/2015   dated  24th December  2015   which in effect  established the Anti-Doping   Agency of Kenya  through a  Presidential  decree  based  on the State  s Act; and secondly, that the latter legal  notice has  since  been replaced by  a legislation  Anti-Doping  Act  2016   which  was  assented  to on  22nd April 2016  and which took  effect on  26th April 2016.

4. Professor Moni  Wekesa submitted that the Act establishes the Anti- Doping Agency of Kenya hence the impugned legal notice   was revoked by operation of law.  Consequently, it was submitted that the chamber summons is spent and the orders of prohibition too cannot issue.

5. On the contention that the Legal Notice  No. 508/2015   has not been  revoked  as per the affidavit  of Catherine Kola, it  was  submitted that  the court  must consider  whether the  person can operate  two or more  entities  using the  same name  and  whether  Parliament  can vote  funds  for more than  one entity established by different  legal instruments.  It  was submitted that a court of law  cannot operate  in vain and since there are  no  orders to  make, the existence of  this suit  beyond  24th April  2016  and  26th April  2016  is  an abuse of the court process  since the  applicants have  not even   bothered to amend  their chamber summons   after these   facts  were  brought to  their attention.

6. On behalf of the respondents, Ms Chimau  supported  the preliminary  objection  raised by Professor  Moni Wekesa the 2nd interested party  adding that  the enactment  of the Anti-Doping legislation effectively  revoked the legal notice  No. 508/2015   which  was  interim  pending   enactment  of the substantive legislation hence  the Judicial Review  application  cannot  be sustained  and that it should   be dismissed  with costs.

7. On behalf of the exparte applicants, Mr Otieno opposed the preliminary objection.  He submitted  that the  legal Notice  No. 508/2015   established  Anti-Doping  Agency  of Kenya  when the  1st respondent had  no jurisdiction to establish  the Agency  and   secondly, the legal  notice purported  to  appoint board  members  which process  was not competitive.

8. That the respondents  should have  come to court to record  appropriate  orders instead of  enacting  legislation  to defeat this suit  which is  mischievous  and disrespectful to  the court and to the Kenyan Sportsmen.  That there  are two  legal notices have  not  been disclosed  to this court namely 1087 of  10th February 2016  and  1343 of  10th February  2016  which make  fresh appointments  of Board Members   to the Anti- Doping  Agency.  That those legal notices are the final acts of frustrating this court’s findings on the illegal acts of the respondents.

9. That although the legal notices were published early this year, the respondents never brought them to the attention of this court.  He castigated the respondents and the 2nd interested party for obstructing justice hence they should be condemned to pay costs if the court finds that the suit herein has been overtaken by events.  He  relied on JR 2/2014  paragraph 30  and submitted that the respondent’s  actions  are intended  to circumvent  the judicial process  and steal  a match on the court  and  the applicants  and meant  to defeat  justice.  He urged  this court to adopt  Honourable  Odunga’s decision  in JR  2/2014  wherein  the learned judge ordered  the Cabinet  Secretary to pay costs  because of their  conduct  in the proceedings .

10. In a brief  rejoinder, professor  Moni  Wekesa  submitted  that he  was  disappointed to learn  that a process  of  legislative  making done through  public participation  could  be offensive.  Further, that there  are  no pleadings challenging the legal  notices  issued in  February  2016   and that  in any event  as a party he had   come before  court to  notify  it of the developments   since  this  suit  was instituted .  That this case is s distinguishable from JR 2/2014 in that this action is meant to bring to order anti-doping issues in the country and that finally, the Anti Doping Law is in force.

Determination:

11. I have carefully considered the preliminary objection raised by the 2nd interested party and as supported by the respondents.  I have also considered the objections by the exparte applicant and the respective parties’ oral submissions and the statutory law and case law relied on in the arguments.

12.  The issue  for determination is whether the preliminary  objection  raised is  sustainable  and if so, whether  the Judicial Review  application  should be struck  out; thirdly, what orders   should this  court make  and last   but not lease, who  should bear the costs of  the preliminary objection.

13. On the first  issue of  whether  the preliminary  objection raised is  sustainable, the ancillary  question is whether  the  preliminary  objection as raised fits  the description of a preliminary objection. To answer that question, I am guided by established principles of law as applied from time to time.

14. The definition  of a preliminary objection  was well set out in the celebrated  case of Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing  Company Ltd V West End Distributors  Ltd [1969] EA 696  that:

“ so far as  I am aware   a preliminary  objection consists  of a point of law  which has  been pleaded, or which  arises by clear implication of pleadings, and which   if argued  as preliminary  point may  dispose  of the suit.”

15. Sir Charles Newbold P. in the same case above stated:

“The first mater related to the increasing practice   if raising points, which should be argues in the normal manner, quite   improperly by way of preliminary objection.  A preliminary objection is in the nature of what used to be a demurer.  It raises a pure point of law which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct.  It cannot  be raised  if  any  fact  had to be  ascertained or if  what  is sought  is exercise of  judicial  discretion.  The improper  raising  of  points  by way of preliminary  objection does nothing  but  unnecessarily  increase  costs  and, on occasion, confuse the issue.  The improper practice should stop.”

16. Applying  the test  set out  in the above  case to the circumstances  of this case,  the  2nd  interested  party contended  that  as the legal  notices   upon which  the Judicial Review  proceedings  hereto are premised  no longer  exists, having been overtaken by enactment of  substantive  law that  establishes  the Anti-Doping Agency which the  exparte   applicants  contended  had been established without  jurisdiction, then  the application for  Judicial Review  is  spent  as the court cannot make  orders  in vain.

17. In my humble  view, the preliminary  objection  is well taken for reasons  that  this  court’s jurisdiction  to determine  the Judicial Review  application for  certiorari  and or  prohibition  is premised  on  existing  administrative  decision  made by  the  1st respondent to gazette an  agency called Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya  vide legal notice  No. 508/2015, which  was later  Superseded  by legal notice  No. 256 of 24th December  2015, and which  the applicants  still challenged.

18. Thereafter, Parliament  in its wisdom did vide Act No. 5 of 2016  enact the Anti-Doping  Act which establishes the Anti Doping Agency of Kenya , a body corporate  with perpetual succession and a common seal  with the power  to sue  and be sued   in its  corporate name.  Section 5(3)  of the said  Act which took  effect on  26th April  2016   provides that the Agency shall be the successor in title to the Anti-Doping  Agency established  under the Anti- Doping   Agency of Kenya Order, 2015 which shall cease to  have effect  immediately upon the commencement of the Act and  the transitional  provisions under Section 44(1) of the  Act shall have effect  upon the  commencement  of the Act.

19. This court  notes that by Presidential Gazette  Notice No. 256/2015  dated            24th December  2015, the President did, pursuant to Section 3(1)  of the  State  Corporations Act Cap  446, establish the Anti- Doping  Agency  of Kenya , under paragraph  3 of that Executive Order.  The exparte applicant’s counsel argues that the respondents are in essence stealing a match on the court and   on the adverse party.

20. I have examined the Gazette Notice No. 256/2015 dated 24th December 2015.  It does not appoint any members to the Anti- Doping Agency Board.  However, the  Gazette Notice No. 508/2015   dated  22nd January  2015  published  on   30th January  2015  did appoint Board  members  among  them  the 2nd interested  party.

21. In the amended  Notice of Motion  dated  10th August  2015, the  applicants sought to have this court to  quash the Gazette Notice  No. 508/2015  published  on 30th January 2015  establishing  the Anti- Doping  Agency  of Kenya; and  to prohibit  the respondents  from enforcing  or implementing  the said Gazette Notice No. 508 of 2015 .

22. According  to the  2nd interested party  and the respondents, the above   Legal Notice   was overtaken by the  Legal Notice  No. 256  of  2015  which  latter is   an Executive Order   signed   by the President  and that since  the enactment  of substantive  law establishing  the Anti-doping  Agency  of Kenya, the Agency purportedly  established  under the impugned  Legal Notice is nonexistent.  Further that there are no proceedings challenging the legal Notice No. 256 of 2015 by the President.

23. I quite  agree that  the  Agency  in question being a public entity  as  established under the Anti- Doping   Act  2016  can only be  one such  Agency by such name, capable of drawing  public funds from  the exchequer.  That being  the case, I find that all other  such agencies  by the name  Anti- Doping  Agency of Kenya  established  by Gazette Notices whether  by the Cabinet Secretary or by the  President’s Executive   Order are superseded by the enactment of   substantive legislation, the Anti- Doping  Act No. 5 of  2016  which came  into force on 26th April 2016.

24. This court also  takes judicial notice  of the pressure  that the Government of Kenya  was under from the International community to which we are a part of, to establish  institutional  mechanisms  for addressing  doping  issues   within the  sports arena in the country and hence  the Gazette Notices  appointing  the Chairman  and Members  of the then  Anti- Doping  Agency  as established  by Presidential  Executive  Order of the  President vide legal Notice No. 256/2015.

25. That being the case, it is expected that the exparte applicants would  challenge the Executive Order  vide LN 256/2015  which  was  being  implemented  by the subsequent  LN Nos  1342/2016.  That was not done.  Since  the two Legal Notices   were independent  of each other, nothing  prevented the applicants  from challenging  the LN No. 256/2015  and the  two implementing legal  notices No. 1342/2016  and  1342/2016.

26. And with the enactment of the Anti- Doping Act No.  5 of  2016,  which establishes  the Anti- Doping  Agency  of Kenya, I find that  the previous  legal notices  are effectively spent.

27. Section 10 of the Act now establishes a Board of the Agency and the composition and qualifications for appointment of Board members and its chairman are also set out there under.  It therefore  follows that any person  of interest  can and has an  opportunity, if they  so wish  to challenge the new legislation  or any action taken by a public authority in  the implementation  of that legislation  which is now  in force.

28. It would, in my humble  view, be a mere  academic  exercise to  proceed to hear and determine   the merits  of the notice of motion as amended  seeking to  quash legal Notice No. 508/2015 and to prohibit its implementation when, in essence there is nothing capable of being implemented under that Legal Notice.

29. I must however mention that from the pleadings  by the exparte  applicants, I have  no doubt  in my mind that  the action  of issuing  Legal Notice  No. 508/2015   which was  being challenged  by the applicants herein was overtaken  by events of the publication of the subsequent  LN No. 256/2015, after  the applicant’s  challenged  the  Cabinet Secretary’s decision.  The subsequent Legal Notice was in my view, intended to correct the illegality earlier on committed by the Cabinet Secretary.

30. However, it cannot  be said  that the enactment of  the Anti-Doping  Act  was  intended to defeat  this suit   since  legislative  making  process  in this country  involves  public participation and the enactment  of any law  is the  preserve  of Parliament. The Cabinet Secretary is not a Member of Parliament and neither is the Attorney General.  Both are nonetheless key stakeholders at policy and legislative making process levels just as the exparte applicants and the interested parties herein are.  The  Honourable  Attorney General being  the Principal  Legal Advisor  to  the Government is expected to advise  Cabinet  and the Government  at large  on procedures and on  legal consequences  of acting outside  the established  law.  I would in the premise not  find the Act of  enacting  legislation  while  this suit   was  pending  to be in contempt  and or an  affront   to judicial  process  as  was held  by Odunga J in JR  2/2014  and Kimaru  J in Stephen Somec  Takwenyi & Another Vs  David Mbuthia  Githare  &  2 Others  HCC 363/2009  since  the role of  Parliament  is to make law, and  for as long as it was not prohibited from doing so, this court does not find any fault in such enactment. Furthermore, the matter before the court did not concern the legality and or constitutionality of enacting Anti Doping Law.

31. On the other hand, unless   there is evidence of malice on the part of the Cabinet Secretary and the Attorney General in advising the President to issue Legal Notice No. 256/2016, I find that the act of correcting an illegality that is subject of court proceedings is not contemptuous and neither would it be an affront    to judicial process.  Each  case has to be looked at  independently, on its own facts and circumstances noting that    Judicial Review  proceedings   are not intended  to determine  the merits and  or demerits of  actions  or inactions  of public officers/institutions/authorities but the legality of those processes and or  the fairness of the process   adopted in arriving  at the administrative decisions.

32. In my humble view, It would not  be in the  interest of justice for the court  to be unduly sensitive  to actions  of parties  which actions  are not necessarily in contempt  of court orders, and to insist  that  every action  done touching  on a matter  pending  before court must be with the  blessings  of the court.  In this case, there was no order barring the Cabinet Secretary or even the President from correcting the error which gave rise to the challenge before the court.  There was also no order barring Parliament from enacting the Anti-Doping legislation.  That being   the case, I decline to find that the respondents did not act in good faith.  In my humble  view, the respondent’s   subsequent  actions demonstrate a  sense of  being prepared  to face   the consequences   of their actions, not necessarily  by battling  it in court   to justify their actions , but that  upon the realization that  whatever  action had been  taken  was  improper,  or unprocedural, they opted to rectify.  It would, in my humble view, be too harsh to conclude that the respondents acted with impunity.  Justice demands that courts must be fair and level headed in their decisions.

33. In the end, I find that the preliminary objection was well taken and sustainable.  Having found the preliminary objection sustainable, it  follows  that the Notice of  Motion as  amended  seeking  for judicial  Review  Orders  of certiorari   and prohibition  touching  on legal Notice  No. 508/2015   cannot  stand as there  is no  substratum   with  the enactment  of the  Anti- Doping  Act 2016 and the establishment of the Anti Doping  Agency of Kenya.

34. Accordingly, the preliminary objection by the 2nd interested party and as supported by the respondents succeeds.

35. Therefore, the notice of motion dated 31st July 2015 and as amended is hereby struck out as it was overtaken by operation of law.  Costs are in the discretion of the court.  The applicants urged the court to order that the respondents be condemned to pay costs to the applicants.  Whereas   I agree that  the preliminary  objection  scuttled  the applicant’s  challenge  to the  LN 508/2015,   I decline to award costs to the applicants for reasons that  the respondents  have not been shown to have acted  maliciously.

36. I also find that  the respondents  were acting  in the public interest  while  bowing to the overwhelming international pressure  to establish  an institutional  framework that would deal with the issue  of doping  in sports, which  is not  just a  domestic issue but a public good   matter, only that the respondents were not properly advised on what procedure to adopt, having regard to the current constitutional imperatives in Kenya where nearly every action by the state or state organ tends to infringe or threaten the infringement of the Constitution or the constitutional guaranteed rights in one way or the other hence, the need for checks and the exparte applicants cannot be faulted for being vigilant in that regard.

37. However, there is no real or perceived loss or prejudice that the exparte applicants have or would suffer as a result of being vigilant in matters of sports. In the end, I order that each party shall bear their own costs of the preliminary objection and of the Judicial Review proceedings which are hereby marked as effectively closed.

Orders accordingly.

Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 6th day of September 2016.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE