T L v Kadhis Court Nairobi, Attorney General & M A A [2016] KEHC 3519 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  55 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLE 165(6) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF: AN APPLICATION BY T L FOR LEAVE TO COMMENCE JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS

AND

IN THE MATTER OF: SECTIONS 8 AND 9 OF THE LAW REFORM ACT, CAP 26 LAWS OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF: ORDER 53 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 2010

BETWEEN

T L……………………………..........................…………………....APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE KADHIS COURT NAIROBI………….………………….1ST RESPONDENT

THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL........................................2ND RESPONDENT

M A A...................................................................................INTERESTED PARTY

RULING

The Exparte applicant in this matter is M/S T L professing the Islamic religion, and so is the interested party Mr M A A.  The respondents are the Kadhi’s court Nairobi and the Attorney General.

The Exparte  applicant’s application dated  19th February 2016  seek from this court Judicial Review Order of Certiorari to bring into this court  the orders  of the Kadhi’s court, Nairobi issued  on 3rd  February  2016  for purposes of   quashing and to quash  the said orders   that relate to custody, care and control of A  M A A (minor).

The Exparte  applicant  also seeks  for Judicial Review  Orders of  prohibition  to prohibit  the Kadhi’s court  Nairobi from proceeding   with case No. 14/2016  M A A Vs T L  in so far  as  those proceedings relate to custody, care and control of  the minor(issue) subject.

The grounds upon which that application is  predicated  are that the Kadhi’s court  is not vested   with jurisdiction  to hear and determine  the dispute relating  to custody, care and or control of children  and that the Kadhi’s  jurisdiction  is limited to the jurisdiction  conferred  by Article  170(5) of the Constitution.

The interested  party by his counsel’s  oral application in court on 27th July 2016  made by Mr Ali seeks for orders  that this matter  be referred  to the office of the Chief Justice   to constitute  a bigger bench  of the High Court to hear and  determine the Judicial Review  matter.  Counsel  submitted that the  matter raises serious  constitutional  issues of infringement  of rights of   the interested  party who is a Muslim and who should not be  subjected to proceedings   before any other   court other  than the  Kadhi’s court.  Further, that  the issue of  the Kadhi’s  jurisdiction  to hear and determine  disputes   relating to custody, care, and control  of children  has been a subject of contradictory pronouncements  by the High Court   hence the need  to constitute a bigger  bench  to  hear this matter  to resolve  the contradictions .

Mr Omari counsel for the exparte   applicant   was of the contrary view and submitted   that this court is being   asked to sit and review   the so called contradictory decisions of the High Court   on the subject, which jurisdiction it does not have.  That the  matter herein  is challenging  the jurisdiction  of the Kadhi’s court  which jurisdiction  this court  is vested  with by Article  165 of the Constitution  and that this  court is not dealing  with rights  of the interested party but about rights and interests  of the minor  child.  Further, that there   are specific  statutes  dealing with marriage  and children’s  issues  and the fact  that the interested party  is a Muslim does not mean  that every dispute must be heard  by the Kadhi’s court even when  the Kadhi’s court has no jurisdiction  but that this is a matter for   the High Court.

I have carefully considered  the submissions  by both parties’  advocates on the oral application  for reference  of this matter  to the office of the Chief Justice  to constitute  a bigger bench  to hear it.

Article  165(4) of the Constitution  of Kenya empowers this court to certify  a matter that is  raising substantial  questions  of law under  clause 3(b)  and (d)  of Article  165  of the Constitution  to be heard  by an uneven  number  of judges  being not  less than  three, assigned  by the Chief  Justice. That is, where  this court  in the exercise  of its jurisdiction  to determine  the question  whether  a right  on fundamental freedom on the bill of  rights has been denied, violated, infringed  or threatened; and any question  respecting  the interpretation of the Constitution  including the determination of:

i.The question whether any law is inconsistent with or in contravention of the constitution;

ii. The question whether anything said to be done under the authority of the Constitution or of   any law is inconsistent with, or in contravention of, the Constitution;

iii. Any matter  relating to constitutional  powers  of state organs  in respect of  county governments  and any matter  relating  to the constitutional relationship  between  the levels of  government; and

iv. A question  relating to conflict  of  laws under Article  191;

From  the reading  of Article  165(4) of the Constitution it is  the court  seized  of the matter  that is vested  with the   power  to certify  that  matter  as raising  serious  or substantial  questions of law, as envisaged in Article 165(3) b and (d) of  the constitution  and that it  shall  be heard by  uneven  number of judges to be assigned  by the Chief Justice.

Before  me is  a Judicial Review  application challenging  the jurisdiction  of the  Kadhi’s Court  in hearing  and determining   matters  relating to  custody  and care of children; in a dispute  between the applicant  and interested  party  who  were  married  under Islamic law.  Is that a matter raising a substantial questions of law under Clause 3 (b) or (d) of Article 165 of the Constitution?  I find not.  The reason being that  this court   is vested  with   supervisory  jurisdiction over the subordinate  courts   and  over any  person, body  or  authority  exercising  a judicial  or quasi  judicial function, but not  over a superior  court( See Article  165(6)  of the Constitution. Kadhi’s court is a subordinate court as established under Article 170 of the Constitution (Part 3).

In my humble  view, it  does not  require  a bigger   bench to determine  the question of the jurisdiction of  the Kadhi’s court  since jurisdiction  is conferred  by statutes  and the Constitution  not by parties.

In addition, albeit  it has been  submitted by the  interested  party that  there have  been conflicting  decisions of the High Court   on the jurisdiction  of the Kadhi’s Court,  that conflict  cannot be  resolved by the High Court’s  bigger bench  but by  an appellate court.  The High Court is a court of record yes, and a superior court, with unlimited original civil and criminal jurisdiction.  However, Article 165(6) of the Constitution is clear that   the High Court shall not exercise supervisory jurisdiction over a superior court.

To ask for  a bigger bench  so as to resolve the issue of the  two  schools of thought  propounded by two different  decisions  of the High Court  would, in my  humble view, be asking the High Court  to sit on appeal of the judgments  of a superior court  and its  own judgment  at that.  In addition, the High Court is fully constituted when presided over by one judge.  A three or more bench is not bound by a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction and neither can it overturn that decision.

Furthermore, it is not every allegation of infringement   of a  fundamental right  under the Bill of  Rights  that will raise substantial  question(s)  of law  which must  be certified  by the court  as such.

Having  examined the application  by the exparte  applicant   and the  issue raised by  the interested  party, I am not  persuaded  that this  is a matter raising a  substantial question of law as envisaged  in Article  165(4)  requiring the constitution of a three  or more judge bench  to hear and determine.  Accordingly, I decline to certify the matter as such and direct that the Judicial Review matter herein shall be heard by one judge of the High Court.

Orders accordingly.

Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 28th day of July 2016.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

FURTHER ORDERS

The 1st respondent is granted 10 days to file and serve a response if any.  All parties to file written submissions.  Mention on 14th September 2016 to fix a hearing date.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

28. 7.2016