1.Upon perusing the notice of motion dated July 1, 2022 filed by 1st , 2nd, 3rd and 4th applicants on July 27, 2022, seeking to review, vary and/or set aside the ruling and order of this Court delivered on June 3, 2022 in Application No 4 (E010) of 2022; Senate of Kenya & others v National Assembly & others, which orders allowed an application for review and set aside the orders of stay issued by this court on May 19, 2022; and
2.Having read the affidavit in support of the application sworn by Hon Kenneth Makelo Lusaka, the second applicant on July 1, 2022 and filed on July 27, 2022; and
3.Further considering the grounds in support of the application for review and the applicants written submissions, urging that this court erred in allowing the respondents’ application dated May 25, 2022, by failing to consider the effect of the same on the legality of the Bills that the National Assembly has been given latitude to enact; the said ruling has given the National Assembly latitude to pass Bills without the concurrence between the two houses, an issue that is the subject of the main petition before this court; that some of the Bills the National Assembly seeks to pass without the requisite concurrence are clearly in contravention of the Constitution; that they together with other parties were extensively limited by time to respond to application whose orders they seek reviewed; that the Supreme Court Petition No 19(E027) will be rendered nugatory if the prayers sought are not allowed; and that both houses had proceeded on sine die recess; and
4.Further considering the replying affidavit of the 1st and 2nd respondents sworn by Serah M Kioko on August 2, 2022 and filed on August 4, 2022 and their written submissions, which in opposing the application for review contends, inter alia, that the Supreme Court Act does not make provisions for a review of a decision which is the subject of another application for review as that will amount to inviting the court to sit on appeal of its own decision; that the court is functus officio regarding the issue of stay and or review of the said orders; that pursuant to rule 28(5) of the Supreme Court Rules, any review by the court is final and not subject to further review; and that the instant application is an abuse of the process of court;
6.Considering the legal principles as set out in Outa case under which this court, in exercise of its inherent powers, may review, any of its judgments, rulings or orders so as to meet the ends of justice, that is where: (i) The judgment, ruling, or order, is obtained, by fraud or deceit; (ii) the judgment, ruling, or order, is a nullity, such as, when the court itself was not competent;(iii)the court was misled into giving judgment, ruling or order, under a mistaken belief that the parties had consented thereto; and
7.We do find, having considered the application, the submissions of all parties, in response and opposition to the application, that it has not been demonstrated by the applicants that the impugned ruling was obtained by fraud or deceit, is a nullity, or that the court was misled into giving its ruling on review under a mistaken belief that the parties had consented as per the guidelines set in the Outa case;
8.The above finding notwithstanding, we note with concern that learned counsel for the applicants seek this court to exercise a jurisdiction it lacks, namely, to review or re-litigate the question of stay, which has been settled by this court with finality. Consequently, we find that the present application lacks merit and is for dismissal.
9.As for the costs before this court, award of the same is discretionary as determined by this court in Jasbir Singh Rai & 3 other v Tarlochan Singh Rai & 4 others Petition No 4 of 2012;  eKLR. However, this being public interest litigation challenging the constitutionality of the Bills pending before Parliament and noting that the main appeal is yet to be determined, there shall be no order as to costs.
10.In the circumstances, we make orders as follows:a.The notice of motion application dated July 1, 2022 is hereby dismissed;b.Each party shall bear its costs.