Case Metadata |
|
Case Number: | Petition 1 of 2018 |
---|---|
Parties: | Institute of Social Accountability & another v National Assembly of Kenya & 3 others |
Date Delivered: | 06 Aug 2021 |
Case Class: | Civil |
Court: | Supreme Court of Kenya |
Case Action: | Ruling |
Judge(s): | Mohammed Khadhar Ibrahim, William Ouko, Philomena Mbete Mwilu, Smokin C Wanjala, Susanna Njoki Ndungu |
Citation: | Institute of Social Accountability & another v National Assembly of Kenya & 3 others (Petition 1 of 2018) [2021] KESC 30 (KLR) (6 August 2021) (Ruling) |
Case History: | Being an application seeking leave to file additional evidence and corresponding leave to the respondents to respond to the additional evidence |
County: | Nairobi |
Case Summary: | The Declaration of an Act as Unconstitutional by the Courts did not Prohibit Parliament from Subsequent Enactment of Law that would Repeal the Impugned Unconstitutional Act.
Institute of Social Accountability & another v National Assembly of Kenya & 3 others [2021] eKLR Petition No. 1 of 2018 Supreme Court of Kenya P.M. Mwilu, DCJ & VP; M.K. Ibrahim, S.C. Wanjala, S.N. Njoki and W. Ouko, SCJJ August 6, 2021 Reported by John Ribia
Evidence Law – judicial notice – judicial notice of the Hansard – applicability of the Hansard in proceedings before a court of law - whether courts could make reference to the Hansard while making judicial determinations. Constitutional Law – separation of powers – Legislature – parliamentary privilege – extent of parliamentary privilege - whether parliamentary privilege extended to acts that could be considered a violation of the Constitution. Legal Systems – Acts of Parliament – constitutionality of Acts of Parliament – where an Act had been declared unconstitutional – whether the declaration of a law as unconstitutional by the courts prohibited Parliament from subsequent enactment of law that would repeal the impugned unconstitutional Act. Civil Practice and Procedure – appeals – hierarchy of courts – where an issue was pending before the High Court but a party was seeking determination of the issue in a higher appellate court - whether a party could seek determination of a matter that was still pending in the High Court at the Supreme Court. Brief Facts The petitioners moved to the Supreme Court vide a petition of appeal that sought to overturn the judgment and orders of the Court of Appeal save for the declaration that sections 24(3)(c) and (f) and 37(1)(a) of the Constituencies Development Fund Act, 2013 violated the principle of separation of powers. In essence, they sought to invalidate the Constituency Development Fund Act 2013 as amended by the Constituencies Development Fund (Amendment) Act 2015 for various reasons stated in the petition. On its part, the 1st respondent filed a notice of cross appeal that sought to uphold the Court of Appeal’s decision. The petitioners filed an application that sought leave to attach additional evidence, being copies of the Hansard which were not available to them at the time of filing the petition of appeal. The petitioners claimed that the additional evidence removed any vagueness or doubt over the case and had a direct bearing on the main issue in the suit and the respondents could easily respond to and the Court could as well take judicial notice of the evidence. Further, that the additional evidence fit the issues framed in the petition relating to the Constituency Development Fund Act offending the division of functions, principles of public finance and division of revenue. The respondents objected to the application on grounds that that the additional evidence was not directly relevant to the matter and that the petitioners should not be allowed to patch up points that they had not raised at the trial court at the appellate court. Issues
Held
Application dismissed, costs would abide with the outcome of the main appeal
|
Extract: | |
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 |