ALI SAID CHIZONDO & 2 OTHERS v REPUBLIC [1998] KECA 10 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court ruled that a single judge can hear cases where people claim their constitutional rights were violated, not just three-judge panels.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the question referred by the Chief Magistrate concerned interpretation of the Constitution under section 67(3) or enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms under section 84(3)
- 2.What the quorum/composition of the High Court should be when hearing a constitutional reference under section 84(3) - a single judge or a three-judge bench
- 3.Whether the absence of rules of practice and procedure made under section 84(6) barred the hearing of the reference
- 4.By what procedures a person may invoke the High Court's jurisdiction for enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms under sections 70 to 83
Key legal issues
#Nature of the reference - interpretation or enforcement of rights
The reference was one of enforcement of fundamental rights under section 84(3), not constitutional interpretation under section 67(3), and counsel for both sides agreed.
The court distinguished the High Court's three types of constitutional jurisdiction: original jurisdiction under section 84(1), referral jurisdiction for interpretation under section 67(1), and referral jurisdiction for enforcement of rights under section 84(3). The question referred concerned an alleged contravention of the freedom of assembly and association under section 80, not the meaning of a constitutional provision, so the three-judge requirement in section 67(3) was inapplicable.
Quorum for hearing a section 84(3) reference
A single judge may competently exercise the referral jurisdiction under section 84(3); the three-judge practice is conventional, not mandatory, in such cases.
The Constitution prescribes no quorum for enforcement applications under section 84(1) or references under section 84(3), so the normal complement of a single judge suffices. The practice of Chief Justices empanelling three judges ('constitutional court') rests on the gravity of the questions and conventional wisdom, and should continue as a matter of practice except where it is wrongly applied to enforcement questions. Whether one or three judges sit depends on the gravity of the individual case.
Complaint about absence of rules under section 84(6)
The learned Judge's lament about the lack of rules of practice and procedure was misplaced because elaborate procedures already exist.
Following Jaundoo v Attorney-General of Guyana, where neither the rule-making authority nor Parliament has made procedural rules, the right to apply for redress is wide enough to be invoked by any form of procedure by which the High Court can be approached. Plaints, Order 53 and originating motions already exist, so further rules would add little.
Legal principles established
#- The quorum of the High Court when exercising referral jurisdiction under section 84(3) for enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms is a single judge; a three-judge bench is mandatory only for constitutional interpretation under section 67.
- Where the Constitution provides for an application without prescribing its form, the application may be made in any manner by which the court can be approached.
- A person alleging contravention of fundamental rights under sections 70 to 83 may invoke the High Court's jurisdiction by plaint, Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, or originating motion, depending on the relief sought.
Court orders
#- 1.That the referral jurisdiction in the case can competently be exercised by a single judge
- 2.That the question referred to the High Court by the Chief Magistrate be heard and determined by a single Judge on a date to be fixed by the parties at the Registry at Mombasa High Court
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya (Mombasa), Ang'awa, J., on a reference from the Chief Magistrate's Court, Mombasa
- Criminal case before the Chief Magistrate, Mombasa (Mr. Muchelule)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 67(1), 84(1), 84(3) and 84(6) of the Constitution of Kenya (repealed); the Chief Justice giving directions on a constitutional reference referred under section 84(3)
Relief refused
#Empanelment of a three-judge bench ('constitutional court') to hear the reference
A three-judge bench is legally mandatory only for questions of constitutional interpretation under section 67; no such requirement applies to enforcement of fundamental rights under section 84(2) and 84(3)
Costs
No costs order made in the judgment.
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.
I am satisfied that the referral jurisdiction in this case can competently be exercised by a single judge. In the result, I direct that the question referred to the High Court by the Chief Magistrate in the instant case be heard and determined by a single Judge on a date to be fixed by the parties at the Registry at Mombasa High Court.
The quorum of the High Court whenexercising its "Constitutional Jurisdiction" is a single judge. When exercising itsreferral jurisdiction under section 67 the legally mandated composition of the High is at least three judges. If the High Court is exercising its referral jurisdiction of enforcement of the fundamental rights and freedoms under section 84(3) the quorum is also one judge.
Whether to have a quorum of one or three judges in a constitutioial matter will depend on the gravity of the questions raised by the individual case.
This ruling should, therefore, notbe treated as intended to discontinue the practice of three judge bench except incases involving questions of interpretation of the Constitution.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment text contains typographical errors and run-together words (e.g. 'constitutioial', 'aquestion', 'persuance'), and the case name is rendered 'OLIVE CASY JUANDOO' where the standard report is 'Jaundoo'; quotes are reproduced verbatim from the text as supplied.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "ALI SAID CHIZONDO & 2 OTHERS v REPUBLIC [1998] KECA 10 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1998). Constitutional Reference from Mombasa Chief Magistrate's Court Criminal Case (charge under section 79 of the Penal Code). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1998/10/eng@1998-05-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.