AI-generated case brief

Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke

Supreme CourtPartially AllowedPetition 14, 14A, 14B & 14C of 2014 (Consolidated)

Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others v Royal Media Services Ltd & 5 others

Supreme Court of Kenya

29 September 2014

42,700 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Download the judgment (PDF) Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~171 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

Supreme Court upheld the communications regulator's power to license broadcasters after the 2010 Constitution.

What this practically means

The Supreme Court decided that the Communications Commission of Kenya (now Communications Authority) was legally allowed to issue broadcasting licences even after the new Constitution took effect. The Court also said the 'must-carry' rule, which requires signal distributors to carry local channels, is fair and does not violate copyright. It rejected claims that Royal Media Services had a legitimate expectation to get a licence, because the government official who made promises lacked authority.

Executive summary

This was an appeal from the Court of Appeal's decision which had overturned the High Court's dismissal of a constitutional petition by Royal Media Services, Nation Media Group, and Standard Group. The core dispute concerned the digital migration from analogue to digital terrestrial television broadcasting in Kenya. The Supreme Court addressed five main issues: the constitutionality of the Communications Commission of Kenya (CCK) under Article 34 of the Constitution; whether the media houses had a legitimate expectation to be issued a Broadcast Signal Distribution (BSD) licence; whether the 'must-carry' rule infringed their intellectual property rights; whether the High Court petition was barred by issue estoppel; and whether the Court of Appeal's orders exceeded its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the CCK was not unconstitutional and was lawfully mandated to continue licensing during the transition period. It distinguished between Article 34(3), which governs licensing procedures, and Article 34(5), which mandates Parliament to establish a media standards body (the Media Council of Kenya). The Court found no legitimate expectation for a BSD licence, as the promises made by the Permanent Secretary were not lawful and the ICT Policy was a general statement, not a specific promise by the licensing authority. The 'must-carry' rule was held not to infringe intellectual property rights, as it fell under the 'fair dealing' exception to copyright. The Court also found that the High Court petition was barred by issue estoppel regarding the denial of the BSD licence, as the same issue had been finally determined by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Tribunal. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeal's orders, including the order to issue a BSD licence to the media houses and the declaration nullifying the licence issued to Pan African Network Group. The Court directed the Communications Authority of Kenya (successor to CCK) to consider the media houses' application for a BSD licence within 90 days, to align the existing licence with constitutional imperatives, and to set new timelines for digital migration. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Questions the Court framed

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

1.whether the Communications Commission of Kenya was the body contemplated under Article 34 of the Constitution
2.whether the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents had a legitimate expectation to be issued with a Broadcast Signal Distribution (BSD) licence
3.whether the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents’ intellectual property rights were infringed by the appellants
4.whether the petition filed at the High Court was barred by 'issue estoppel', and amounted to an abuse of the Court process, for being a collateral attack against the decision by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board [Tribunal]
5.whether the final orders of the Court of Appeal were in excess of the powers and jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution

Key legal issues

Whether the Communications Commission of Kenya (CCK) was the body contemplated under Article 34 of the Constitution to regulate airwaves and issue BSD licences.

Holding

The CCK was not unconstitutional. The Constitution did not envisage a legal vacuum, and existing laws, including the Kenya Information and Communications Act establishing the CCK, remained in force subject to being construed to conform with the Constitution. The body under Article 34(5) is the Media Council of Kenya, not the CCK.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court held that the Constitution's transitional provisions (Fifth and Sixth Schedules) were designed to ensure a harmonious transition without a legal vacuum. The CCK was established by the Kenya Information and Communications Act, 1998, which remained in force after the 2010 Constitution. The Court distinguished between Article 34(3), which guarantees freedom of establishment subject to licensing procedures, and Article 34(5), which mandates Parliament to establish a body to set media standards. The Court found that the Media Council Act, not the Kenya Information and Communications Act, was the legislation enacted to give effect to Article 34(5). Therefore, the CCK was lawfully mandated to continue licensing until Parliament enacted new legislation, and its actions were not automatically void upon the Constitution's promulgation.

p. 46

Whether the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents had a legitimate expectation to be issued with a BSD licence.

Holding

The respondents did not have a legitimate expectation to a BSD licence. The promises made by the Permanent Secretary were not lawful as he lacked the capacity to make them, and the ICT Policy was a general statement of government aspirations, not a specific promise by the licensing authority (CCK).

Reasoning

The Court applied the established principles of legitimate expectation: there must be a clear, unambiguous promise by a public authority with the lawful capacity to make it, and the expectation cannot override clear statutory or constitutional provisions. The Permanent Secretary had no role in licensing under the Kenya Information and Communications Act. The ICT Policy was a general policy framework, not a promise to any specific entity. Furthermore, the respondents' claim was based on their investment in broadcasting infrastructure, but the Court noted that a BSD licence is for signal distribution, which is technically different from broadcasting. The Court also found that the procurement process was lawful and the respondents' disqualification for failing to meet the bid bond validity period was a proper exercise of CCK's powers.

p. 61

Whether the 'must-carry' rule infringed upon the intellectual property rights of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents.

Holding

The 'must-carry' rule did not infringe upon the respondents' intellectual property rights. The signal distributors were not 'rebroadcasting' the content, and the rule fell under the 'fair dealing' exception to copyright.

Reasoning

The Court, drawing from comparative jurisprudence (particularly the Philippines Supreme Court in ABS-CBN), found that the signal distributors were not 'broadcasting organizations' as they did not take financial or editorial responsibility for the content. They merely retransmitted the content without alteration. The Court also applied the 'fair dealing' criteria from Canadian law (CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada) and found that the purpose (public access to information), character (mere retransmission), and effect (no competition with the original work) of the dealing were fair. The Court further held that the claim of intellectual property infringement was a plain copyright claim that should have been pursued under the Copyright Act, not as a constitutional petition, invoking the principle of constitutional avoidance.

p. 51

Whether the petition filed at the High Court was barred by issue estoppel, being a collateral attack on the decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Tribunal.

Holding

The High Court petition was barred by issue estoppel in relation to the 1st and 2nd respondents, as they were relitigating the same issue (denial of a BSD licence) that had been finally determined by the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent lacked locus standi on this issue.

Reasoning

The Court adopted a broad approach to issue estoppel, finding that the relief sought before the Tribunal (annulment of the decision denying the licence) was essentially the same as the relief sought in the High Court petition (an order compelling the issuance of a BSD licence). The 1st and 2nd respondents, through their consortium National Signal Networks, had participated in the Tribunal proceedings and chose not to appeal its decision to the High Court as provided by law. The Court held that the Tribunal's decision was final and binding, and the respondents could not circumvent this by filing a constitutional petition two years later. The Court distinguished the 3rd respondent, who was not a party to the Tribunal proceedings, but found it had no locus standi to challenge the denial of the licence to the consortium.

p. 67

Whether the final orders of the Court of Appeal were in excess of the powers and jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution.

Holding

Yes, the Court of Appeal exceeded its powers by ordering the issuance of a BSD licence to the respondents without following the procurement process, and by declaring the CCK unconstitutional and its actions void.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal's orders violated the doctrine of separation of powers by usurping the executive function of licensing. The order to issue a licence without a tender process contravened Article 227 of the Constitution, which requires a fair, equitable, transparent, competitive, and cost-effective system for procuring goods and services. The declaration that the CCK was unconstitutional and its actions void was also in error, as the Court found the CCK was lawfully in place during the transition period. The Court of Appeal's orders were set aside, and the Supreme Court issued its own orders, including directing the 1st appellant (CAK) to consider the respondents' application for a BSD licence within 90 days.

p. 62

Legal principles established

The 2010 Constitution did not create a legal vacuum; existing laws remain in force until replaced.
The Media Council of Kenya, not the Communications Authority, sets media standards under Article 34(5).
Legitimate expectation cannot override clear law or Constitution; a promise by an unauthorized officer is not binding.
The 'must-carry' rule is a fair dealing exception to copyright and does not infringe intellectual property.
Issue estoppel applies in constitutional matters only in the clearest cases of relitigation.

Court orders

1.The Orders of the Court of Appeal made on the 28th of March, 2014 are hereby set aside.
2.The declaration of the Appellate Court of 28th March 2014 annulling the issuance of a BSD licence by the 1st appellant herein (CCK as it then was) to the 5th appellant herein (Pan African Network Group Kenya Limited) is hereby set aside.
3.The Order by the Court of Appeal directing the independent regulator to issue a BSD licence to the 1st 2nd and 3rd respondents herein (National Signal Networks) is hereby set aside.
4.The 1st Appellant shall, in exercise of its statutory powers, and within 90 days of the date hereof, consider the merits of applications for a BSD licence by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents, and of any other local private sector actors in the broadcast industry, whether singularly or jointly.
5.The 1st appellant (CAK) shall, in exercise of its statutory powers, ensure that the BSD licence issued to the 5th appellant herein, is duly aligned to constitutional and statutory imperatives.
6.The 1st appellant (CAK), in exercise of its statutory authority, shall, in consultation with all the parties to this suit, set the time-lines for the digital migration, pending the international Analogue Switch-off Date of 17th June, 2015.
7.Upon the course of action directed in the foregoing Orders (d & e) being concluded, the 1st appellant (CAK) shall notify the Court through the Registry; and the Registrar shall schedule this matter for mention, on the basis of priority, before a full Bench.
8.This Judgment shall be transmitted to the Clerks of the National Assembly and Senate by the Registrar of the Court.

The bench

Judges wrote separately. A dissent does not bind; a concurrence may narrow the ratio.

W. M. MutungaCJ

majority

Wrote the judgment

K. H. RawalDCJ

concurring

Wrote the judgment

The concurring judgment agrees with the main judgment's conclusion but provides a separate analysis on the nature of media freedom under Article 34, the separation of content provision and signal distribution, and the application of Article 47 on fair administrative action to the licensing process.

Upon careful consideration of the main judgment, I hereby put forth my humble opinion on certain pertinent issues in the appeal, as seen through different eyes. These views shall not change the observations made in the main judgment, which is to say that the conclusion will remain unchanged.

K. TunoiSCJ

majority

M. K. IbrahimSCJ

majority

J. B. OjwangSCJ

majority

S. C. WanjalaSCJ

Currently serving

majority

S. N. NdunguSCJ

Currently serving

majority

On appeal from: Court of Appeal at Nairobi; Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2014
Jurisdiction invoked: Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution
Consolidated with: Petition No. 14A of 2014, Petition No. 14B of 2014, Petition No. 14C of 2014

Relief refused

The Court of Appeal's order directing the independent regulator to issue a BSD licence to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents without going through the tendering process.

The order lacked a foundation in law as it contradicted Article 227 of the Constitution and the Public Procurement and Disposal Act. There cannot be a legitimate expectation for a grant of a licence without adherence to statutory or constitutional provisions.

p. 62

The Court of Appeal's declaration that the BSD licence issued to Pan African Network Group Kenya Limited was null and void.

The Supreme Court set aside this declaration, finding that the CCK was not unconstitutional and its actions, including the issuance of the licence, were not void.

p. 83

Costs

Each Party shall bear its own costs at the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

Quotable passages

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

The Orders of the Court of Appeal made on the 28th of March, 2014 are hereby set aside.

p. 83 Final Orders - Setting Aside of Court of Appeal Decision

The declaration of the Appellate Court of 28th March 2014 annulling the issuance of a BSD licence by the 1st appellant herein (CCK as it then was) to the 5th appellant herein (Pan African Network Group Kenya Limited) is hereby set aside.

p. 83 Final Orders - Reinstatement of BSD Licence to 5th Appellant

The Order by the Court of Appeal directing the independent regulator to issue a BSD licence to the 1st 2nd and 3rd respondents herein (National Signal Networks) is hereby set aside.

p. 83 Final Orders - Setting Aside of Order to Issue Licence to Respondents

The 1st Appellant shall, in exercise of its statutory powers, and within 90 days of the date hereof, consider the merits of applications for a BSD licence by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents, and of any other local private sector actors in the broadcast industry, whether singularly or jointly.

p. 83 Final Orders - Direction to CAK to Consider Licence Applications

Each Party shall bear its own costs at the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

p. 83 Costs Order

Hence it is our conclusion that, CCK was not only legally mandated to regulate airwaves and licensing under the 1998 and 2009 Acts, but also, the promulgation of the Constitution of 2010 did not render its actions immediately unconstitutional.

p. 46 Constitutionality of CCK

It is clear from the two statutes that the body contemplated by Article 34(5) of the Constitution is the Media Council of Kenya, and not the successor to the CCK.

p. 40 Body under Article 34(5) - Media Council of Kenya

There cannot be a legitimate expectation against clear provisions of the law or the Constitution.

p. 57 Legitimate Expectation Cannot Override Law

We would hold that the 'must-carry' rule which required the appellants to carry the signals of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents, is by no means inconsistent with the requirement of fairness.

p. 53 Must-Carry Rule and Fair Dealing

We thus conclude that issue estoppel is applicable to this case, with regard to the question as to whether the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents should have been issued with a BSD licence.

p. 67 Application of Issue Estoppel

Key timeline

28 March 2014

Court of Appeal issued orders annulling a BSD licence and directing CCK to issue a licence to Royal Media Services.

2014

Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeal orders and directed CCK to reconsider all BSD licence applications within 90 days.

17 June 2015

International analogue switch-off date referenced in the Supreme Court's orders for digital migration.

Practical implications

For lawyers

Licensing and legitimate expectation after Constitution

The Supreme Court clarified that the Communications Authority retains licensing powers under existing statutes until new legislation. Lawyers should advise clients that legitimate expectation claims require a lawful promise from the actual licensing authority, not general policy statements. The 'must-carry' rule is constitutionally valid, so broadcasters must comply.

For businesses

Broadcast licensing and must-carry compliance

Businesses in broadcasting and signal distribution must note that the 'must-carry' rule is enforceable. The Court upheld it as a fair dealing exception. Companies should ensure their distribution agreements include carriage of local channels as required. Also, the regulator must reconsider licence applications within 90 days, so businesses should engage proactively.

For individuals

Your rights to diverse local TV channels

The 'must-carry' rule ensures that signal distributors carry a minimum number of Kenyan channels, protecting access to local content. Individuals benefit from diverse broadcasting. The ruling also means the regulator continues to operate under existing laws, so consumer complaints about licensing or signal distribution can still be directed to the Communications Authority.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Supreme Court decide in the Royal Media Services case in Kenya?+

The Supreme Court ruled that the Communications Authority could continue licensing broadcasters after the 2010 Constitution. It set aside orders that would have forced the regulator to issue a licence to Royal Media Services, and instead directed it to reconsider all applications fairly.

Is the 'must-carry' rule legal in Kenya?+

Yes, the Supreme Court upheld the 'must-carry' rule requiring signal distributors to carry local Kenyan channels. The Court said it does not violate copyright because it falls under fair dealing, and it promotes access to diverse local content.

Can a government promise give you a right to a broadcasting licence in Kenya?+

No. The Court said a legitimate expectation must be based on a clear promise by an official with lawful authority. A promise by a Permanent Secretary who has no role in licensing cannot create a legal right to a licence.

What is the role of the Communications Authority of Kenya after the 2010 Constitution?+

The Supreme Court confirmed that the Communications Authority (formerly CCK) continues to regulate broadcasting and issue licences under existing laws until Parliament enacts new legislation. The Media Council of Kenya handles media standards, not licensing.

Later judgments citing this (25)

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Olang’ v Chimba & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E048 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5352 (KLR)
[2026] KEELC 5352 (KLR)31 Aug 2026
County Secretary of Kajiado, Ole Sakude & 46 others v Salaries & Remuneration Commission & another (Civil Appeal 230 of 2020) [2026] KECA 1613 (KLR)
[2026] KECA 1613 (KLR)31 Jul 2026
Gatacha (Suing as a Lawful Attorney of Peter Njonjo Kibera & Agnes Wairimu Kibera Vide Special Power of Attorney Dated 11th October 2011) v Nairobi City County & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E610 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4396 (KLR)
[2026] KEELC 4396 (KLR)13 Jul 2026followed
Ongoro v Director of Criminal Investigations & 4 others (Civil Appeal 92 of 2020) [2026] KECA 1441 (KLR)
[2026] KECA 1441 (KLR)10 Jul 2026applied
Musanga & 38 others v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Land, Housing, and Urban Development & 5 others (Environment and Land Petition E010 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3853 (KLR)
[2026] KEELC 3853 (KLR)24 Jun 2026
Keitany & another v Chief Land Registrar & 4 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E030 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3617 (KLR)
[2026] KEELC 3617 (KLR)5 Jun 2026applied
Okoiti v Ministry of Lands, Public Works, Housing and Urban Development & 30 others (Land Case Petition E052 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3230 (KLR)
[2026] KEELC 3230 (KLR)29 May 2026applied
Kuria v Kenya Broadcasting Corporation (Civil Appeal 382 of 2018) [2026] KECA 971 (KLR)
[2026] KECA 971 (KLR)15 May 2026
Mountain View Estate Residents Trust v Board of Trustees National Social Security Fund & 7 others (Environment and Land Case E533 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2526 (KLR)
[2026] KEELC 2526 (KLR)4 May 2026applied
Musyoki v Muchemi & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E023 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2842 (KLR)
[2026] KEELC 2842 (KLR)30 Apr 2026
Nrandzaka v Josephat & 3 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E025 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2749 (KLR)
[2026] KEELC 2749 (KLR)30 Apr 2026applied
Too v Teleposta Pension Scheme Registered Trustees (Land Originating Summons E051 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2346 (KLR)
[2026] KEELC 2346 (KLR)28 Apr 2026applied
Bett v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Land, Housing and Urban Development & 8 others (Constitutional Petition E010 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2347 (KLR)
[2026] KEELC 2347 (KLR)23 Apr 2026followed
Kiambu Club Limited v Kiambu County Government & 2 others (Petition E002 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2283 (KLR)
[2026] KEELC 2283 (KLR)23 Apr 2026applied
Wainaina v Njii & another (Environment and Land Case E233 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 2180 (KLR)
[2026] KEELC 2180 (KLR)21 Apr 2026applied
Villa Greens Limited v Creekview Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E303 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2129 (KLR)
[2026] KEELC 2129 (KLR)21 Apr 2026
Republic v Land Registrar Naivasha; Mwangi & 2 others (Interested Parties); Mwangi (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2165 (KLR)
[2026] KEELC 2165 (KLR)16 Apr 2026
Wangaru v Nyamongo (Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 2035 (KLR)
[2026] KEELC 2035 (KLR)16 Apr 2026
Mwangi v Skyview Gardens Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E542 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1995 (KLR)
[2026] KEELC 1995 (KLR)14 Apr 2026applied
Mbugua (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Joseph Kiarie Mbugua alias Joseph Kiarie Mbogwa) v Tripple Eight Properties Ltd & 2 others (Civil Appeal 612 of 2019) [2026] KECA 699 (KLR)
[2026] KECA 699 (KLR)25 Mar 2026
Mohamed v Adan & 3 others (Civil Appeal E680 of 2023) [2026] KECA 527 (KLR)
[2026] KECA 527 (KLR)13 Mar 2026applied
Bloggers Association of Kenya (BAKE) v Attorney General & 6 others (Civil Appeal 197 of 2020) [2026] KECA 430 (KLR)
[2026] KECA 430 (KLR)6 Mar 2026followed
Karobere v Mutu & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E019 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1947 (KLR)
[2026] KEELC 1947 (KLR)26 Feb 2026
Muruthii v District Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer -Amung’entia Adjudication Section & another; Ciomaroo (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 918 (KLR)
[2026] KEELC 918 (KLR)9 Feb 2026applied
Northern Block Residents Limited v Air View Properties Limited & 2 others (Environment and Planning Petition E042 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1343 (KLR)
[2026] KEELC 1343 (KLR)4 Feb 2026

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others v Royal Media Services Ltd & 5 others", Case Analysis (2014). Petition 14, 14A, 14B & 14C of 2014 (Consolidated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2014/53/eng@2014-09-29

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.

Case metadata

Case numberPetition 14, 14A, 14B & 14C of 2014 (Consolidated)

CourtSupreme Court of Kenya

Date2014-09-29

Judges

W. M. Mutunga,K. H. Rawal,K. Tunoi,M. K. Ibrahim,J. B. Ojwang,S. C. Wanjala,S. N. Ndungu

OutcomePartially Allowed

Judgment length42,700 words

Source

Original judgment

new.kenyalaw.org

Hosted by the National Council for Law Reporting.

Statutes cited

Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 2(5)
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 2(6)
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 4(2)
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 7
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 10
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 11
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 22
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 23
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 25
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 33
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 34
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 35
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 40
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 42
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 46
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 47
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 69
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 70
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 163(4)(a)
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 165(3)(d)
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 227
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 259
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 260
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 261
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 262
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Article 264
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Fifth Schedule
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Sixth Schedule, Section 7
Kenya Information and Communications Act (Cap 411A)
Section 3(2)
Kenya Information and Communications Act (Cap 411A)
Section 5
Kenya Information and Communications Act (Cap 411A)
Section 5A
Kenya Information and Communications Act (Cap 411A)
Section 5B
Kenya Information and Communications Act (Cap 411A)
Section 25(3)(e)
Kenya Information and Communications Act (Cap 411A)
Section 46O(1)
Kenya Information and Communications Act (Cap 411A)
Section 460(1)
Kenya Communications (Amendment) Act, 2008
General
Kenya Communications (Amendment) Act, 2009 (Act No. 1 of 2009)
General
Kenya Information and Communications (Amendment) Act, 2013 (Act No. 41A of 2013)
Sections 3 and 6
Kenya Communications (Broadcasting) Regulations, 2009
Regulation 14(2)(b)
Kenya Communications (Broadcasting) Regulations, 2009
Regulation 16(2)(a)
Kenya Information and Communications (Broadcasting Communications and Frequency Spectrum) Regulations, 2010
General
Public Procurement and Disposal Act (Cap 412)
Section 2
Public Procurement and Disposal Act (Cap 412)
Section 4(1)
Public Procurement and Disposal Act (Cap 412)
Section 27(1)
Public Procurement and Disposal Act (Cap 412)
Section 93
Public Procurement and Disposal Act (Cap 412)
Section 100
Public Procurement and Disposal Act (Cap 412)
Section 112
Public Procurement and Disposal Regulations, 2006
Rule 73
Copyright Act (Cap 130)
Section 2
Copyright Act (Cap 130)
Section 26(1)
Copyright Act (Cap 130)
Section 29
Copyright Act (Cap 130)
Section 35(4)
Media Council Act No. 46 of 2013
Section 6
Media Council Act No. 46 of 2013
Section 7
Media Council Act No. 46 of 2013
Section 11
Supreme Court Act No. 7 of 2011
Section 3
Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21)
Section 7

Cases cited

Peter Obara Ondari v. Kenya Revenue Authority
Civil Appeal No. 208 of 2010, [2013] eKLR
Mutazindwa v. Aguba & Others
(2008) 2 EA 265
Stephen Muriungi & Anor v. Republic
[1982-88] 1 KAR 360
Centre for Human Rights and Awareness v. John Harun Mwau & 6 Others
Civil Appeal No. 74 & 82 of 2012, [2012] eKLR
The Principle of Gender Representation in the National Assembly and the Senate
(2012) eKLR
Mumo Matemu v. Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 Others
(2013) eKLR
Democratic Alliance v. The President of the Republic of South Africa & 3 Others
CCT 122/11 (2012) ZACC 24
Asif Hameed & Others v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others Etc
1989 AIR, 1989 SCR (3) 19
Handyside v. The United Kingdom
Application no 5493/72 [1976] ECHR 5
The Speaker of The National Assembly v. Karume
Civil Application No. NAI 92 OF 1992
Harrikissoon v. Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago
[1980] A.C 265
Republic v. National Environmental Management Authority
[2011] eKLR
Wananchi Group v. Communication Commission of Kenya and 2 Others
High Court Petition No. 98 of 2012
Kwacha Group of Companies & Another v. Tom Mshindi & 2 Others
[2011] eKLR
Royal Media Services Ltd v. Director of Public Prosecutions
[2013] eKLR
Nairobi City Council v. Thabiti Enterprises Ltd
[1995-98] 2 E.A 231
Galaxy Paints Co. Ltd v. Falcon Guards Ltd
[2000] 2 E.A 385
Said Bin Seif v. Shariff Mohammed Shatry
(1940) 19 (1) KLR 9
De Souza v. Tanga Town Council
(1961) E.A 377
Samuel Kamau Macharia v. Madhupaper International Limited and Others
Sup. Ct. Application No.2 of 2011, [2012] eKLR
Mary Wambui Munene v. Peter Gichuki King’ara and 2 Others
Sup. Ct. Petition No.7 of 2014, [2014] eKLR
Executive Council of Western Cape Legislature v. President of the Republic of South Africa
1995(4) SA 877(CC)
Re Manitoba Language Rights
(1985) 1 R.CS 721
Council of Civil Service Union v. Minister for Civil Service
[1985] 1 A.C.374
Wijetunga v. Insurance Corporation of Sri Lanka
(1985) LRC 335
Wijeratne and Another v. People’s Bank and Another
(1985) LRC (Const) 349
Retrofit v. Posts and Telecommunications Corporation
LRC [1994] 4 489
Ferreira, Clive v. Levin, Allan and Others
(No. 5 of 1995)
MacFoy v. United Africa Co. Ltd
[1961] 3 All ER 1169
New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer
444 U.S. 568 (1979)
R. v. Devon County Council, ex parte Baker and Another; R. v. Durham County, ex parte Curtis and Another
[1995] 1 All ER 73
R. v. DPP ex p. Kebilene
[1999] 3 WLR 972 (HL)
R. v. Secretary of State for Education and Employment, ex p. Begbie
[2000] 1 WLR 1115 (CA)
Republic v. Nairobi City County & Another ex parte Wainaina Kigathi Mungai
High Court Judicial Review Misc. case No. 356 of 2013, [2014] eKLR
Republic vs. Kenya Revenue Authority, ex parte Aberdare Freight Services Limited
[2004] 2 eKLR 530
South African Veterinary Council v. Szymanski
2003(4) S.A. 42 (SCA)
Administrator, Transvaal v. Traub
[1989 (4) SA 731 (A)]
Attorney- General of Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu
[1983] 2 All ER 346 (PC)
Hauptfleisch v. Caledon Divisional Council
1963 (4) SA 53 (C)
Walele v. City of Cape Town and Others
2008 (6) S.A 129 (C.C.)
R. v. Durham County Council, ex parte Curtis & Another
[1992] 158 LGRev R 241 (CA)
Karia and Another v. The Attorney General and Others
[2005] 1 EA 83
Trade Bank Limited v. LZ Engineering Construction Limited
[2000] 1 EA 266
Angle v. Minister of National Revenue
[1975] 2 S.C.R. 248
Craddock Transport Ltd. v. Stuart
[1970] NZLR 499
North West Water Authority v. Binnie & Partners
[1990] 3 All ER 547
Workers’ Compensation Board v. Figliola
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 422
Omondi v. National Bank of Kenya Ltd. & Others
[2001] EA 177
Shields v. Blakeley
[1986] 2 NZLR 262
Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd. v. World of Marble and Granite 2000 CC & Others
2013 (6) SA 499 (SCA)
Blonder-Tongue Laboratories Inc. v. Univ. of Illinois Foundation
402 U.S. 313 (1971)
Parklane Hosiery Co. Inc. v. Shore
439 U.S. 322 (1979)
Saskatoon Credit Union Ltd. v. Central Park Ent. Ltd.
(1988) 22 B.C.L.R. (2d) 89 (S.C.)
Annarita Karimi Njeru v. Republic
(1979) KLR 154
Tellis & Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Others
[1987] LRC 351
Bafokeng Tribe v. Impala Platinum Ltd. & Others
[1998] 11 BCLR 1373
Transnet Ltd. v. Goodman Brothers (Pty) Ltd.
2001 (2) BCLR 176 (SCA)
Kenya Bus Service Ltd and Others v. Attorney General and Others
(2005) 1 E.A 111
Thomas v. The Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago
[1991] LRC (Const.) 1001
Daryao & Others v. The State of UP & Others
(1961) 1 SCR 574
Okiya Omtatah Okoiti & Another v. Attorney General & 6 Others
High Court Const. and Human Rights Division, Petition No. 593 of 2013 [2014] eKLR
Gatirau Peter Munya v. Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others
Sup. Ct. Petition No. 2B of 2014, [2014] eKLR
Jasbir Singh Rai and 3 Others v. Tarlochan Singh Rai and 4 Others
Sup. Ct. Petition No. 4 of 2012, [2013] eKLR
In the Matter of the Kenya National Human Rights Commission
Sup. Ct. Advisory Opinion Reference No. 1 of 2012, [2014] eKLR
Speaker of the Senate & Another v. Attorney-General & 4 Others
Sup. Ct. Advisory Opinion No. 2 of 2013, [2013] eKLR
Re the matter of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission (IEBC)
Sup. Ct. Advisory Opinion No. 2 of 2011, [2011] eKLR
San José Farmers' Co-operative Society Ltd v. Attorney-General
(1991) 43 WIR 63
Attorney-General of St Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla v Reynolds
(1979) 43 WIR 108
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC
512 U.S. 622 (1994)
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC
520 U.S. 180 (1997)
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Philippine Multi-Media System, Inc. & 6 Others
G.R. No. 175769-70 (2009)
Hubbard v. Vosper
[1972] 1 All ER. 1023
CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada
[2004] 1 S.C.R. 339, 366; 2004 SCC13
Sanitam Services (EA) Ltd. v. Tamia Ltd. & 16 Others
Nairobi Petition No. 305 of 2012, [2012] eKLR
S v. Mhlungu
1995 (3) SA 867 (CC)
Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority
297 U.S. 288, 347 (1936)
In re Westminster City Council
[1986] A.C. 668
Marbury v. Madison
5 U.S. 137 (1803)
Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India & Others
(1986) AIR 515
Olum & Another v Attorney-General of Uganda
[2002] 2 EA 508
Dennis Mogambi Mong’are v Attorney General
Nairobi Petition No. 146 of 2011 (Unreported) [2011] eKLR
Royal Media Services Ltd v. A.G
Petition No. 346 of 2012
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Mollison
UKPC 6 (22nd January 2003)

Topics

constitutional law media law administrative law legitimate expectation intellectual property statutory interpretation

The bottom line

What this practically means

Executive summary

Questions the Court framed

Key legal issues

Whether the Communications Commission of Kenya (CCK) was the body contemplated under Article 34 of the Constitution to regulate airwaves and issue BSD licences.

Whether the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents had a legitimate expectation to be issued with a BSD licence.

Whether the 'must-carry' rule infringed upon the intellectual property rights of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents.

Whether the petition filed at the High Court was barred by issue estoppel, being a collateral attack on the decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Tribunal.

Whether the final orders of the Court of Appeal were in excess of the powers and jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution.

Legal principles established

Court orders

The bench

Relief refused

Quotable passages

Key timeline

Practical implications

Licensing and legitimate expectation after Constitution

Broadcast licensing and must-carry compliance

Your rights to diverse local TV channels

Frequently asked questions

Related briefs

Joseph Kamau v The National Construction Authority, The Nairobi City County Government & Abroc Limited

Republic of Kenya in the Matter of a Judicial Review Application by DWA Estate Limited for Orders of Temporary Interdict/Stay and Restraining Orders, Certiorari, Prohibition and Declaratory Orders

Daniel Mathuva Musa v Deputy County Commissioner, Kilungu Sub-County & others

Later judgments citing this (25)

Cite this brief

Cite this brief