Republic v National Assembly, Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources & Attorney General Ex-parte Green Belt Movement, Panafrican Climate Justice Alliance, Transparency International Kenya, John Kioli, Charles Mwangi & Cynthia Wechabe [2017] KEHC 7735 (KLR) | Judicial Review Remedies | Esheria

Republic v National Assembly, Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources & Attorney General Ex-parte Green Belt Movement, Panafrican Climate Justice Alliance, Transparency International Kenya, John Kioli, Charles Mwangi & Cynthia Wechabe [2017] KEHC 7735 (KLR)

Full Case Text

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW

MISC. APPLICATION NO. 11 OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION  BY THE GREEN BELT  MOVEMENT, PANAFRICAN CLIMATE JUSTICE ALLIANCE AND TRANSPARENC INTERNATIONAL  KENYA FOR  LEAVE TO APPLY   FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW   AND  ORDERS   OF  CERTIORARI  AND  PROHIBITION

AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLES 1,2,3,10,27,56,93,94 AND 95   OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 7 OF CLIMATE CHANGE   AT, NO, 11 OF 2016 ACT

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL ACT

AND

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY STANDING ORDER NO.  45(4)

BETWEEN

REPUBLIC......................................................................................................APPLICANT

VERSUS

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY.....................................................................1ST RESPONDENT

CABINET SECRETARY MINISTRY OF

ENVIRONMENT, NATURAL RESOURCES....................................2ND RESPONDENT

ATTORNEY GENERAL.....................................................................3RD RESPONDENT

JOHN KIOLI............................................................................1ST INTERESTED PARTY

CHARLES MWANGI..............................................................2ND INTERESTED PARTY

CYNTHIA  WECHABE..........................................................3RD INTERESTED  PARTY

EXPARTE

THE GREEN BELT MOVEMENT........................................1ST EXPARTE APPLICANT

PANAFRICAN CLIMATE JUSTICE ALLIANCE...............2ND EXPARTE APPLICANT

TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL KENYA..................3RD EXPARTE APPLICANT

RULING

1. This  ruling  determines  the question of  whether or not  to grant  stay  in terms  of prayer  No. 6(a), (b)  and (c ) of the  chamber summons  dated   16th  January 2017 which  stipulates:

6:  That the grant of leave do operate as a stay against:

a) The decision  of the  2nd respondent  not to forward   the  name of Charles Mwangi  to the 1st respondent  for consideration of  approval as  nominee  of the Civil Society to the National  Climate Change Council;

b) The decision  of the  1st respondent  of the  20th December   2016  rejecting the name  of Ms Cynthia Wechabe  as a nominee of the National Climate  Change Council;

c) The appointment of Mr John Kioli, the 1st interested party herein as a member of the National Climate Change Council representing the Civil Society.

2. On  18th January  2017  this court  granted  to the exparte  applicant  leave  to institute  Judicial Review  proceedings   for  orders of :

i. Mandamus  to compel the  2nd respondent  to forward  to the  1st respondent  the name of  Charles Mwangi, the  2nd interested party herein, for consideration and  approval  as nominee of the Civil Society  to the  National Climate  Change;

ii. Certiorari  to move into this court and   quash the  decision   of the  1st  respondent  of  20th December  2016   rejecting the name of  Ms Cynthia  Wechabe  as a nominee  of the  marginalized  community  to the member of the National  Climate Change Council;

iii. Mandamus  to compel the  1st respondent to consider  for  approval the names of  Mr Charles Mwangi  and  Ms Cynthia  Wechabe as nominees  of the Civil Society  and  marginalized community respectively to the National Climate Change  Council.

iv. Prohibition directed  at the  1st respondent  from forwarding  the name  of Mr John  Kioli  the  1st interested party  herein  to H.E. the President for appointment   as a member of the National Climate Change  representing Civil society.

3. The main motion   was dutifully filed   on 20th January 2017.

4. The  application  was opposed  by the  1st  interested  party   who filed  grounds of opposition  on 9th February  2017.  The 1st respondent National Assembly also filed grounds of opposition on   30th January 2017.

5. According to the  exparte  applicant  as   demonstrated  by its  submission both  written   as filed on  30th January  2017  and  orally highlighted  by its   counsel  Mr Appollo  Mboya  on 30th January  2017, this court   has jurisdiction  and inherent  power to grant stay, based  on the prevailing  circumstances, pending  interpartes  hearing.  Reliance was placed on Republic vs Kenya Revenue Authority & Another Exparte Ramageco, JR 58/2013.

6. Further, that Order 53 Rule 1 (4) of the Civil Procedure  Rules permits this court to order at the time of granting  leave to institute Judicial Review  proceedings, to order that such leave shall operate as stay, in cases of an application for prohibition and certiorari, not in cases of mandamus, as was held in ReJustus Nyagaya &Social Democratic Party NRB HC MISC A 1122/2008 where Nyamu J held that at the leave stage, it cannot be ordered that leave to apply for mandamus order do operate as stay because logically there can be nothing to stay in respect of the leave for mandamus unlike orders of certiorari and prohibition where such leave can, if ordered by a Judge operate as stay.

7. Counsel for the applicant also relied on HCMISAPP 155/ 2006 Taib A. Taib Minister for Local Government &3 others where the learned Judge Maraga (Now Chief Justice and President of the Supreme Court) set out that the stay orders are limited in scope and purpose and concluded that a stay is only appropriate to restrain a public body from acting. Further, that in this case, the actions sought to be stayed are:

a. Failure/neglect by the 2nd respondent to forward to the National Assembly(1st respondent) herein, the name of Charles Mwangi(the 2nd interested party) the nominee of the civil society to the National Climate Change Council(NCC);

b. The 1st respondent on 20/12/2016 rejected the nomination of Ms Cynthia Wechabe the 3rd interested party herein as members of NCC forwarded  by the civil society through a consultative  process  criteria  to represent the marginalized  community and instead replaced her with Mr John Kioli nominated by Kenya  climate change working  group which is  not the most representative registered National Umbrella  Association of Civil  Societies  working  on climate change  as required  by Section 7(2) (g)  of the Climate Change Act, No. 11  of  2016;

c. The 1st respondent  has approved  the names of the nominees to the membership of the National  Climate Change Council and  H.E. the  President  may appoint  the members  of the National  Climate Change Council  anytime.

8. That the appointments   had not   been made. According to the applicant, the court   can stay the appointment of the person whose names shall be submitted.  It was submitted that this court retains inherent jurisdiction to ensure observance of due process of law to prevent   abuse   of its process.

9. It  was further submitted that Section  7(2) (g),(h)  of the Climate Change  Act, 2016  is clear  on who  should nominate  a representative  and that the Act does  not provide for the procedure for nomination  of members hence the relevant  organization  named  therein sat and nominated persons, yet the National Assembly has approved all male nominees and rejected female nominees.

10. Further, that Section 7(b) of the Climate Change Act               2016 provides that the President in appointing members he shall ensure compliance with the 2/3 gender principle. Reliance  was  placed on  the matter  of the Estate of  George Mboroki Meru HCC Miscellaneous 357/2004andRyann Investments  Ltd  & Another  V USA [1970] EA 675  on the inherent  powers  of the court to ensure observance  of the due  process  of law,  to prevent  abuse of its process, to  do justice    between the  parties   and  to secure  a fair trial  between them.

11. It  was  submitted  that the court should grant   the orders sought  to ensure that the  exparte applicant’s notice of  motion is  not rendered  nugatory by acts of the respondent during  the  pendency  of the application.

12. In opposition to the prayer  for  stay, the  1st respondent  filed grounds  of opposition   on 30th January  2017 and  submitted orally  on the said   grounds  through its  counsel Ms  Thanji who  contended that Article  165 3(d) (2) of the Constitution is only applicable  if some  act has been done.  That  in this case, nothing  has been  done yet  and that  as we do not  know  what Parliament will do,  the court cannot  stop Parliament  from carrying outs its mandate as that would set a dangerous precedent.

13. Ms Thanji further submitted that this   court can only review or nullity   actions of Parliament.  That there is separation of powers.  Reliance   was placed on the Mumo Matemo case in  RepublicVs  National Assembly & Another Exparte Coalition for  Reform and  Democracy (CORD) [2016] e KLRandCA 157/2009 John Harun Mwau  V Dr  Andrew  Muller, Central Bank of Kenya   & 2 Others  wherein  the court  held   that the law does not  allow judicial  interference of Parliamentary  proceedings except  where  Parliamentary  legislation is contrary  to the Constitution  and  Rule  of Law and that such  intervention should  be exercised  with restraint, and  only in appropriate instances, bearing in mind the specific   circumstances  of each case.

14. It  was submitted  by Miss Thanji  that under  the Parliamentary  approvals ( Public Appointments  Act) Section 7 thereof  is clear that  Parliament  has to  look  at the process  of nomination.  That in this case, Parliament   has already, requested for submission of two names of the female gender hence this application is premature.  Counsel urged the court exercise judicial restraint and allow Parliament to carry out its constitutional mandate then the process can be challenged.

15. The  1st interested party  also opposed the prayer  for stay  through his grounds of opposition filed on  9th February  2017  and  written submissions together with  arguments  as submitted  by his counsel   Mr Omwenga  on behalf  of Professor  Musili Wambua.

16. It was  submitted that  Senate  had not   received names of the  nominees by the National Assembly  and that the Senate  can reject   those names   hence there is  no imminent  danger of being   appointed by the President, and therefore  the order of stay  would not  be efficacious  at this stage.  Reliance   was placed  on Taib  A. Taib vs Minister   for Local Government  & Others Mombasa HC Miscellaneous Application 158/2006  where  Maraga  J ( as he then  was)  set  out the scope  of stay in Judicial Review matters  and held that  the scope  and  purpose of  stay is limited  and the court   must exercise  caution.

17. It  was submitted that only the  1st respondent  has made  a decision hence  stay can only be  limited  to the actions  of  the  1st respondent  National Assembly, yet  the prayer is   touching   on the presidency thereby  making its scope  unlimited   which  the court should  not allow.

18. Further, Ms Thanji contended that   the applicant   has not  sought  to quash  the nomination  of John  Kioli to the National  Climate Change Council but sought  for prohibition  of the National Assembly from  submitting  his name for appointments by the President.  That if stay is granted, Senate will be prohibited from deliberating on his name hence stay will influence senate deliberations.

19. The National   Gender  and  Equality  Commission (NGEC) was enjoined as a friend  of the court  vide an  oral application  by Mr Mbithi, by consent of all  the parties  to these proceedings.

20. Mr Mbithi on his part submitted on behalf  of the National   Gender  and  Equality Commission  that Parliament  (sic)  approved  2 names  which might proceed  to be approved  by senate and that the applicant is questioning how  nominations  and  rejections  were done.  That  under section 7 of the Climate Change Act, 2016, members of the council are 9 and that only the  Cabinet Secretary  for Environment is female hence the National Climate Change Council  which is a public body will be  unconstitutionally  constituted.

21. That  the court will not be  interfering  with functions  of Parliament  if it  intervenes since Parliament  has already  made a decision  hence it  is not premature  to interrogate that  decision.

22. In a rejoinder, Mr Mboya submitted on behalf of the applicants that the Hansard Report of the National Assembly (NA) shows that there are approvals    and that the Cabinet Secretary has forwarded names   whose   nomination process   was flawed hence the challenge.

23. That the flawed  process  is still  ongoing  hence the  decision in the Taib  A. Taib case is  relevant as it  states that  the purpose  of  stay is to prevent   the decision  maker   from continuing   the process. Counsel urged the court to be mindful not render the application nugatory.

24. At this  point the court  sought clarification from all the parties  counsels as  to whether  Senate  was bound  by the decision of the National Assembly; and  or  whether  the President  is by law  bound to appoint the  persons  whose  names are  submitted to him by Parliament.

25. Mr Apollo Mboya submitted that the President cannot decide   who to appoint and that there is silence on whether the President can reject the nominees.  However, it was submitted that the court can intervene where there is threat of violation of the Constitution on representation of the marginalized and the gender question.

26. Further, that the orders sought  are  equitable  remedies  and so the  applicants  had to come to  court expeditiously  and not  wait  until the   violation of the law before  coming to court  because  equity aids the vigilant   not the indolent.

27. In a rejoinder, Miss Thanji submitted that what this court is being told is to jump the gun yet the National Assembly   has already   warned itself   on the process and on the gender issue.  However, that  as senate   is not a party to these proceedings, the court  can only  nullify  the whole process  and not  bar the process at this  stage  until  Senate   has deliberated  on it.

28. Mr Omwenga submitted that the  applicant  is at liberty  to send  a memorandum to the Senate  to  challenge   the nomination stating their  reservations hence the  exparte  applicants  have a recourse.  Further, that the President can write to Parliament    rejecting   appointment   hence it is   undesirable to arrest the nomination process at this stage.

29. Mr Mbithi for the National Gender and Equality Commission had nothing to add to his earlier submissions.

Determination

30. The only issue for determination is whether or not stay sought is merited.  The grant of leave to operate as stay of enforcement of an impugned decision is an exercise of judicial discretion which must be based on the circumstances   of each case.  Stay is not a matter of course.  The party  seeking for stay  must demonstrate  to the satisfaction of the court   that unless stay is granted,  the applicant  shall, if  successful in the main motion, be rendered  a mere pious explorer  in the  judicial process.

31. In Taib  A. Taib V Minister for Local  Government   & Others (Mombasa HC Miscellaneous  CA 158  of 2006, Maraga J (as he then was) was clear that:

“ as an injunction  is not  available  against the government and public officers, stay  is a very important  aspect of the  Judicial Review  jurisdiction  in order that the applicant’s application is not rendered  nugatory  by  acts of the respondent  during the  pendency  of the application and that therefore  where the  order is  efficacious, the court  should not hesitate to grant it though it must never be  forgotten  that the stay orders  are discretionary  and their  scope and  purpose is limited.

The purpose of a stay order in Judicial Review  proceedings  is to prevent  the decision maker from continuing  with the decision  making  process  if the decision has not been made or to suspend the validity and  implementation  of the decision  that has  been made and it not  limited to judicial or quasi- judicial proceedings as it encompasses the administrative decision  making  process  being  undertaken  by a public  body  such  as a local authority  or Minister  and  the implementation of the decision of such a body if it has been taken.

It is however not appropriate to compel a public body to act.  A stay  order  framed   in such   a way as to compel  the respondents  to reinstate  the applicant  before  hearing  the respondent  cannot  be granted.

32. In Republic Vs Ashworth Hospital Authority [2003] WLR 127at 138, Lord Dyson LJ stated; inter alia.

“The purpose of a stay in a Judicial Review is clear.  It is to suspend the “proceedings “that are under challenge pending the determination of the challenge.  It preserves the status quo.  This will and the Judicial Review process and make it   more effective.  It will ensure, so far as possible, that if a party is ultimately successful in his challenge, he will not be denied the full benefit   of his success.  In Aron, Glidewell, LJ said that the phrase “stay of proceedings” must be given wide interpretation so as to enhance the effectiveness of the Judicial Review jurisdiction.  A narrow interpretation, such as that which appealed to the Privy Council in vehicle supplies, would appear to deny jurisdiction even in case A.  That  would indeed  be  regrettable and, if   correct, would expose  a serious   short coming   in the armoury of powers  available to the court  when granting  permission to apply for  Judicial    Review .  This it is common ground that “proceedings” includes not only the process   leading up to the   making of the decision but the decision itself.  The administrative court routinely grants a stay to prevent   the implementation of a decision that has been made   but not yet carried into effect, or fully carried   into effect.”

33. From the above decisions, it is clear that stay may be granted  in exceptional  cases and   only  in cases  where  the stay  orders  are meant  to prohibit  or suspend  implementation of the decision and  not where the stay orders  sought  are couched   in mandatory terms.  This is fortified by Order 53 Rule (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules   which provides that:

“ The  grant  of leave  under this  rule  to apply for an order of  prohibition  of an order  of certiorari  shall, if  the judge  so directs, operate  as stay of the  proceedings in  question until  the determination  of the application,  or until  the judge orders  otherwise.”

34. In Re Justus Nyangaya & Social  Democratic  party Nairobi  HCC Miscellaneous  Application  1132/2002Nyamu J  ( as he then  was)  held that at leave stage, it cannot  be ordered  that leave to apply for  mandamus  order do  operate  as  stay because  logically there  can be nothing   to stay  in respect of  the order of  mandamus  unlike  in certiorari and  prohibition  where  such  leave  can if the judge orders, operate  as stay.

35. Examining  the prayers  for stay, prayer 6(a)  seeks for  stay against   the  decision of the  2nd respondent  not to forward the name  of Charles Mwangi to the  1st respondent   for  consideration of approved  as nominee of the Civil Society to the National Climate Change Council.

36. No  doubt, to stay a decision not to forward  is to seek to compel the  decision maker  to forward   which is a mandatory    order and  which is expressly  excluded  from Order  53   Rule  (4)  of the Civil  Procedure Rules  hence this  court will not belabour  much, other than  to find that  prayer 6(a)  of the chamber  summons  is not available  to the applicants.  It is declined and dismissed.

37. In the same  vein, prayer  6(b) of the chamber  summons seeks for  stay of the decision  of the 2nd  respondent   rejecting  the name of Ms  Cynthia Wechabe as a nominee to the  National Climate Change Council which is  related  to the main prayer (4)  for mandamus  to compel the  1st respondent  to consider for approval  the names  of Charles Mwangi and   Ms  Cynthia Wechabe   as nominees  of   the Civil Society and marginalized  community  respectively  to the National Climate Change Council.

38. To stay the decision rejectingthe name of Cynthia Wechabe   as a nominee is to order by way of Mandamus   compelling her inclusionin the names of nominees.  Again, that is the  power that is not  available  to this court  at this stage, as stipulated in Order  53   Rule  4  of the Civil Procedure  Rules  that  stay can   only be  ordered  in certiorari  and  prohibition.  The applicant’s counsel concedes   in his submissions that this court’s   power to grant stay is limited   and such limitation is now clear.

39. The only prayer for stay which is couched  in prohibitory   terms  is  prayer 6(c )  which seeks  for stay  of the appointment  of Mr  John  Kioli, the 1st interested party herein as a member  of National Climate Change Council representing the Civil Society.

40. This prayer is related to the main prayer for prohibition  directed at the  1st  respondent  from forwarding  the name of  Mr John  Kioli to the President  for appointment  as a member of National Climate Change Council representing  Civil Society.

41. The reason why there is a challenge to Mr John Kioli’s appointment  is that  he  was nominated  by Kenya  Climate Change  Working Group  which is not  the most representative   registered national umbrella association of Civil Societies  working  in climate change  as required by Section 7(2)  (g)  of the climate  change Act  No. 11  of  2016.

42. It  was contended   that the  1st  respondent  had  approved  names  of nominees to the membership of the National Climate Change Council and that  his Excellency the President  may appoint  the members of the National Climate Change Council at any time.

43. Parties are bound by their pleadings.  In this case, the applicant  has  pleaded that the  1st respondent, the National Assembly has approved  the nominees  and  are about  to present  their names  to H.E.  The President for appointment anytime.

44. However, during the hearing of the application, it was  apparently  clear that  although the National Assembly  which is one of the Houses of Parliament   established  under Article   93 of the Constitution has already  approved  and  or rejected  some nominees  and  replaced  them, the National Assembly  must  submit the names of   the approved  nominees  to the Senate  which is  another House  of Parliament  established  under Article  93  of the Constitution, and it is only after the Senate  approves the nominees   that the names thereof  are forwarded  to H.E. the President  by the Speakers  of the two Houses  jointly  for  appointment.  There is no rule of law that the Senate is bound by the decision of the National Assembly.  It can or may adopt or reject the nominees after deliberations, and give reasons for such decision.

45. This court retains   residual powers to reverse a decision taken by the two Houses sand even that of the President if the decision is made   in violation of the law or the Constitution.

46. Parties  advocates  submitted at length  on the jurisdiction of this court  to interfere  with Parliament  which  jurisdiction is said  would  violate the principle  of separation of powers.  There are a plethora of decisions on the issue as to whether or not this court can interfere with parliamentary processes.  However, at this stage, this court will be venturing into the merits of the main motion if it took that direction.  The court   must confine itself to established principles of stay in Judicial Review proceedings.

47. In my humble view, it is upon the applicant  to demonstrate  that unless  the order of stay is granted, the  subject  matter shall be destroyed   or that  the  orders of court  which are sought  in the main motion shall be rendered  nugatory, or that the exercise of the litigant  of his constitutional  right will be  impeded  or that even if the  applicant  succeeds, there  would be  no return  to the status quo.

48. In the  present  case, this court  does  not foresee a situation where the  subject matter of the  proceedings   will be  destroyed  or foist upon the  court  a situation of complete  helplessness or render  nugatory any judgment or order.  In other words, the court does not see any compelling reasons for it to grant stay in terms of the nomination of Mr Kioli.

49. Furthermore, as the process  of nominations of  members  to the National Climate Change Council is along   winded  process, the Senate  which is  not a party  to these  proceedings will have  an opportunity  to determine  whether  the nominations  approved by  the National  Assembly complied with  the  gender Rule, which is  also  a matter  for consideration at the substantive  hearing  of the main motion.

50. Furthermore, prayer  No. 6 (c )  of the chamber summons  on stay  presupposes  that the  1st  interested  party  has already  been cleared  by Parliament  and that what  is remaining  is his  appointment   by H.E. the President  which is not  the case here. The  evidence  available  shows  that the 1st  interested party   was cleared  by the National Assembly only  and  is yet to be discussed  and  or cleared  by the Senate.

51. On the other hand, the Senate is not a party to these  proceedings  and  no orders   have been  sought  seeking  to prohibit   it from  doing  any act including  presenting  the name  of John Kioli  to H.E. the President  for appointment  as a member of National Climate Change Council.

52. It is on those accounts  that I find  that it  would be  presumptive for this  court to assume that the senate will not follow the law in its deliberations  when there is nothing to show that  it is  bound by the decision  of the National Assembly.

53. Senate  is a  voice of  reason  on its own and therefore  it is not  appropriate  for this court to  imagine  that it will  not comply with  the law   regarding  appointments  to the National Climate Change Council.

54. Further, the President is bound by the law. Section 7   of the Climate Change Act mandates him in appointing members to the NCCC to ensure   that the 2/3   gender principle is adhered to.

55. The applicant  and others are at liberty to submit a memorandum or memoranda  reminding  or advising  the Senate and or His Excellency the President, of  any irregularity  in the manner in  which nominees to the National Climate Change Council as cleared  by the National Assembly  were nominated.

56. There is no indication that Senate will not adhere to the law, and if it does, then nothing prevents the courts from nullifying the whole process, including appointments that violate the law, so as to uphold the rule of law and Constitutionalism.

57. It is for the above reasons that I find that the exparte  applicant has not  demonstrated  before  this court  that he  deserves the prayer  that leave granted  do operate  as stay  in terms  of prayer No. 6 (c ) of the  chamber  summons.

58. In the end, I decline to grant all the prayers for stay and dismiss them.  I order that each party bears its own costs of the prayer for stay.

Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 13th day of February 2017.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Mr Apollo Mboya for the exparte applicants

Miss Thanji for the Respondent

Mr Omwenga for the first interested Party

CA: George