Narok County Government v Senate & another [2019] KECA 34 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that Narok County could not stop the Senate from questioning its Mara Conservancy revenue, because questions merely sought figures, not control.
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 Senate Standing Committee of Finance, Commerce and Budget has power to scrutinize accounts, budgets and records of transactions relating to Mara Conservancy and the Narok County Government
- 2.Whether the court had jurisdiction to determine a matter touching on the separation of powers and parliamentary privilege
- 3.Whether the dispute should have been referred to the dispute resolution mechanism under Article 189 of the Constitution and the Intergovernmental Relations Act
- 4.Whether the appellant established a prima facie case warranting injunction and conservatory orders against the Senate
Key legal issues
#Whether the Senate may question a county government on locally generated revenue (Mara Conservancy)
On the interlocutory application before it, the Court found no prima facie case that the Senate's questions amounted to oversight of locally generated revenue; the answers sought related only to amounts received, not expenditure, and the scope of Senate oversight was left for determination at trial
The Court examined the impugned questions and agreed with the trial Judge that they sought disclosure of revenue received, not superintendence of county-generated revenue. The appellant's fears that the Senate would usurp County Assembly functions were speculative. The substantive petition, including declaratory relief on the meaning of 'oversight' under Article 96, remained pending before the trial court, so the Court confined itself to the interlocutory discretion.
Whether the Court should interfere with the trial Judge's discretion declining injunctive relief
The Court declined to interfere, applying Mbogo v Shah; the Judge properly found no prima facie case and no arguable point warranting injunction
The guiding principle in Mbogo v Shah was applied: an appellate court does not interfere with discretionary decisions unless the judge misdirected himself or was clearly wrong with resultant injustice. The Judge had fastidiously addressed the prima facie case question and the nugatory aspect, and the Court agreed with his conclusions on both. His conclusions were fortified by the American Cyanamid principle.
Jurisdiction and parliamentary privilege; intergovernmental dispute resolution
The Court declined to make any determination on jurisdiction based on parliamentary privilege or on Article 189/Intergovernmental Relations Act dispute resolution, as these were not determined below and there was no cross-appeal, leaving them to the trial court
The trial Judge had not deeply addressed jurisdiction, the application being interlocutory. The respondents' jurisdictional arguments based on parliamentary privilege under Article 117 and the National Assembly (Privileges and Immunities) Act were noted but, since there was no opinion on that issue below and no cross-appeal, the Court of Appeal expressly declined to say more and left the matter to the trial court.
Legal principles established
#- A Court of Appeal will not interfere with a trial judge's exercise of discretion unless the judge misdirected himself or was clearly wrong resulting in injustice
- Jurisdiction must be addressed first; without jurisdiction a court cannot take any further step
- Absence of a prima facie case on an essential point defeats any claim to interlocutory relief
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C. Petition No. 424 of 2015
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over an appeal from the High Court in a constitutional petition (no specific provision expressly invoked in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Injunction and conservatory/prohibitory orders restraining the Senate and its committees from debating and considering questions on revenue collection from the Mara Conservancy
No prima facie case established; the questions posed by the Senate sought disclosure of amounts received, not control over use of locally generated revenue; the substantive petition remained available to the appellant
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents
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.
Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step. A court of law downs tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction
If there is no prima facie case on the point essential to entitle the plaintiff to complain of the defendant's proposed activities that is the end of any claim to interlocutory relief.
It is premature to speculate on matters that the appellant feared the Senate was likely to do that is to usurp the power of the County government.
In light of the aforesaid that the appellant have an opportunity to pursue the petition for the substantive orders, we find this appeal lacking merit and order it dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#Paragraph numbering duplicated - two consecutive paragraphs are both numbered [7] and two are both numbered [13]
The trial court ruling is variously dated 9th December, 2015 (coram) and 9th November, 2015 (ground 1 of appeal)
Second respondent spelled 'RESPONDNET' in the coram
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Narok County Government v Senate & another [2019] KECA 34 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Civil Appeal No. 236 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/34/eng@2019-12-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.