Blair & another v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Investments Trade and Industry & 3 others

not pleaded or particularised any personal, professional, commercial, or constitutional interest aected by the appointment of the 2nd and 3rd respondents to the board of the 4th respondent. The questions raised by the petitioners in their suit are matters for the High Court and not this Court. 3. The respondent thus seeks that the petition/applications before the Court be struck out with costs. 4. On the objections, the respondents submitted that the petitioner/applicants have no locus standi to present their application and petition before the Court. Locus standi means a person's right to be heard or to le a case before a court that has a direct or substantial interest in the matter. In Legal Advice Centre t/a Kituo Cha Sheria v Attorney General [2024] KESC 15 [KLR], the court held that locus standi goes directly to whether the court has jurisdiction to hear a matter. Such is a pure point of law as dened in Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA. 5. The respondents submitted that the Supreme Court in Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital & 3 others v Gikenyi & 74 others [2026] KESC 50 (KLR) considered the court's jurisdiction and the categories of persons who should approach it. The court distinguished between matters for the High Court and matters for the Court. Public interest litigation is removed from the Court to the High Court. Therefore, any person aggrieved by the decision of the 1st and 4th respondents, if not in the category of persons under section 12 of the ERLC Act, must approach the High Court, not the Court. 6. The petitioners have described themselves as acting in the public interest; hence, they have no locus standi before the court. This removes the court's jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. The suits should be struck out with costs. 7. The petitioners submitted that before 2 June 2026, the court routinely exercised jurisdiction over public interest litigation suits, as held in Okiya Omtatah Okoiti v President of Kenya & 9 others [2016] KEELRC 1845 (KLR). The court has presided over cases challenging the appointment of board members of state corporations and not the High Court. Supreme Court decisions bind the court from 2 June 2026. With jurisdiction addressed, the issue cannot be applied retrospectively. The present case was led before the Supreme Court judgment in Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital & 3 others v Gikenyi & 74 others [2026] KESC 50 (KLR) and should be heard on merit. Determination 8. As conceded by the petitioners/applicants, the judgment in Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital & 3 others v Gikenyi & 74 others [2026] KESC 50 (KLR) was delivered on 3 June 2026. The judgment addresses public and private law contractual relationships and the court's jurisdiction under section 12 of the ELRC Act. Specically, it removes those acting in the public interest from the court's purview. 9. Indeed, the court is guided by the superior court; its jurisprudence applies. The submissions by the petitioners/applicants are correct to the extent that the court has addressed itself to the issue of public interest litigation from the perspective of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(a) read together with Article 165(5)(b) of the Constitution. In that perspective, the petitioners/applicants should not be faulted for approaching the court as herein. 10. The challenge is that the petitioner had approached the High Court under JR No. E029 of 2026 and the matter was transferred to this court. They should not be made to suer the striking out of the original petition following the Supreme Court's judgment in Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital & 3 others v Gikenyi & 74 others [2026] KESC 50 (KLR). To secure the rule of law and access to justice, the matter should revert to the High Court for the appropriate directions and in view of Article 165(5) (b) of the Constitution, the court will direct as necessary. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2670/eng@2026-09-30 2

page 2 of 3

11. In this regard, awarding costs to the respondents would defeat the very essence of public interest litigation; in fact, the petitioners initially moved the High Court, and the matter was transferred to this court. This will not foster the ends of justice. 12. In view of the emerging objections arising from the Supreme Court's judgment and the parties' submissions, the court is bound; therefore, the objections dated 17 July 2026 are allowed to the extent that the petition herein and JR No. E029 of 2026, as consolidated, are struck out. However, the petitioners/applicants shall revert to the High Court, JR No. E028 of 2026 for appropriate directions. No orders on costs. The Hon. Registrar, ELRC, shall place the File before the Registrar, High Court, immediately, for placement before the Presiding Judge, Judicial Review Division of the High Court, for appropriate directions. DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT THIS 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 M. MBARŨ JUDGE In the presence of: Court Assistant: Kemboi ………………………… and ……………………………… https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2670/eng@2026-09-30 3

page 3 of 3