Good News to All CASs At last

The High Court has found that President William Ruto was improperly enjoined in the consolidated petition that challenged the appointment of 50 Chief Administrative Secretaries.

While delivering the verdict, Justice Visra Aleem Alnashir, however, said the legal oversight is not fatal to the proceedings of the case or its outcome.

“Pursuant to Article 143 of the Constitution and based on the law as set out above, we find that the first respondent was improperly enjoined to the consolidated petition,” the judge said.

“We further find that the misjoinder is not fatal to the consolidated petition but take the opportunity to urge the petitioners and future litigants to avoid this practice in light of the unequivocal pronouncement by the Supreme Court on this issue,” Justice Alnashir ruled.

The judge found fault in the judgment by the Supreme Court during the Building Bridges Initiative case which said that the Head of State can be sued in his personal capacity.

He said the apex court’s ruling outlined below went against Article 143 of the Constitution.

Anybody or any party aggrieved by the President’s actions or failures can initiate proceedings against the Attorney General who by virtue of being the legal representative of the government in legal proceedings also represents the President who is the head of government, the Supreme Court said.

The immunity on the other hand offers protection that shields the President from civil suits being filed against them in a personal capacity, it added.

As such, pursuant to Article 156 (iv) of the Constitution, the exercise of public power by the President can be challenged in a court of law by suing the Attorney General through an act of judicial review or constitutional petition where the court may issue appropriate reliefs, the apex court said in its ruling on the BBI case.

However, Justice Alnashir went against the provisions of the Constitution.

“This leaves me with the conclusion that the learned judges unfortunately failed and erred in the interpretation and application of Article 143 (ii) of the Constitution by holding that civil proceedings can be instituted against the President or the person performing the functions of the Office of President during the tenure of office in the effect of anything done or not done contrary to the Constitution,” justice Alnashir ruled.