Case Metadata |
|
Case Number: | Petition 14, 14A, 14B & 14C of 2014 |
---|---|
Parties: | Communications Commission of Kenya, Attorney General, Ministry of Information Communications and Technology, Signet Kenya Limited, Pan African Network Group Kenya Limited & Startimes Media Limited v Royal Media Services Limited, Nation Media Services Limited, Standard Media Group Limited, Consumer Federation of Kenya (COFEK), Gotv Kenya Limited & West Media Limited |
Date Delivered: | 05 Jan 2015 |
Case Class: | Civil |
Court: | Supreme Court of Kenya |
Case Action: | Ruling |
Judge(s): | Mohammed Khadhar Ibrahim, Willy Munywoki Mutunga |
Citation: | Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others v Royal Media Services Limited & 5 others [2015] eKLR |
Court Division: | Civil |
County: | Nairobi |
Case Outcome: | Application rejected |
Disclaimer: | The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information |
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
(Coram: Mutunga, CJ & P; Ibrahim, SCJ)
PETITION NO. 14 OF 2014
AS CONSOLIDATED WITH PETITION NO. 14 A OF 2014;
PETITION NO. 14B OF 2014;
AND
PETITION NO. 14C OF 2014
BETWEEN
1. COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION OF KENYA
2. THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL
3. THE MINISTRY OF INFORMATION COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
4. SIGNET KENYA LIMITED
5. PAN AFRICAN NETWORK GROUP KENYA LIMITED
6. STARTIMES MEDIA LIMITED.......................................................APPELLANTS
AND
1. ROYAL MEDIA SERVICES LIMITED
2. NATION MEDIA SERVICES LIMITED
3. STANDARD MEDIA GROUP LIMITED
4. CONSUMER FEDERATION OF KENYA(COFEK)
5. GOTV KENYA LIMITED
6. WEST MEDIA LIMITED...............................................................RESPONDENTS
R U L I N G
After hearing all parties and their submissions on this application by Channel Forty Three Media Company Limited to be enjoined in this Petition as an interested party we rejected the application and now give our reasons:
The applicant was not a party to these proceedings in the Supreme Court and the matter in issue now is clearly one of compliance with this Court’s Judgment of September 29, 2014. The applicant has come too late in these proceedings. The application may also result in unnecessary delays of focusing on the core matter of seeking compliance with the orders of this court.
The reasons for this application are that the applicant continues to suffer as a result of these continued interlocutory orders to which the applicant was not a party. The application can set a dangerous precedent of raising other causes of action through such an application as this in the future.
There will be no orders as to costs of the application.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 5th day of January, 2015.
…..………..………………………………………. …………………………………………………
W. M. MUTUNGA M.K. IBRAHIM
CHIEF JUSTICE & PRESIDENT JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE SUPREME COURT
I certify that this is a true copy of the original
REGISTRAR
SUPREME COURT OF KENYA