Improper and judicious exercise of discretion by the Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court to decline the lodging of pleadings not framed in compliance with the law
The instant application was brought erroneously pursuant to the provisions of rule 4A(2), 31(2) and 38(4) of the Supreme Court Act, 2011 instead of section 11(1) of the Supreme Court Act and rules 6(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020 in which the applicant, who was unrepresented by counsel sought, among other reliefs, an order of review and setting aside of the decision of the Deputy Registrar declining to lodge his pleadings. The applicant submitted that the Deputy Registrar denied him his right of appeal guaranteed by the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. The court further submitted that he had challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal to take out of the hearing list of February 1, 2022 Criminal Application No. E018 of 2021 and that that action was actuated by corruption within the Judiciary.
- Whether the Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court had the power to decline the lodging of pleadings that were not framed in compliance with the Supreme Court Rules, 2020.
- Whether it was a proper and judicious exercise of discretion by the Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court to decline the lodging of pleadings not framed in compliance with the law.
- The application though brought under the wrong provisions of the law and rules, sought reliefs under section 11(1) of the Supreme Court Act and rule 6(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020 under which the court had jurisdiction to review the decision of the Deputy Registrar. Under rule 6, one of the roles of the Registrar was to decline pleadings that were not in accordance with the Constitution, the Act, the Rules, or the court's practice directions for filings. A party aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar could apply for a review to a single judge whose determination of the question was final.
- Having read the impugned ruling of the Deputy Registrar, to the effect that the petition had not been framed in the manner prescribed by the Supreme Court Rules and further that the decision of the Court of Appeal to take out the applicant’s appeal from the hearing list did not constitute a determination to warrant invocation of the court’s jurisdiction under article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution, the Deputy Registrar properly and judiciously exercised his discretion in declining to lodge the applicant’s petition. The petition of appeal was not framed in compliance with the Supreme Court Rules, 2020 and the Court of Appeal had not made any determination to require the intervention by the court.