County Assemblies Forum v Attorney General & 3 others; Parliamentary Service Commission (Proposed Interested Party)
The bottom line
#Parliamentary Service Commission can join a Supreme Court case on MPs' term limits.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court allowed the Parliamentary Service Commission to join a case about how long Members of Parliament can serve. The Commission showed it has a direct interest because it had already asked the Court for guidance on the same issue. The Court said anyone wanting to join a case must prove they have a personal stake, would suffer harm if left out, and have something new to say. Since no one opposed the request, the Court granted it.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Parliamentary Service Commission should be granted leave to be enjoined as an interested party in Petition No 22 of 2017
Key legal issues
#What are the criteria for joinder as an interested party in the Supreme Court?
The applicant must demonstrate a personal interest or stake in the matter, prejudice if non-joinder occurs, and that its submissions are relevant and not a replication of other parties' submissions.
The Court applied the principles from Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another v Republic & 5 others, which set out three elements: the personal interest must be clearly identifiable and proximate; prejudice must be demonstrated and not remote; and the applicant must set out its case and show its submissions are relevant and not a mere replication. The Court found that the Parliamentary Service Commission, as a constitutional commission under Article 127(1), had a direct interest in the interpretation of the term of office of Members of Parliament, which was the subject of the main petition. The application was unopposed, and the Court was satisfied that the criteria were met.
Legal principles established
#- To join a case as an interested party, you must show a clear and close personal interest in the matter.
- You must also prove you would suffer harm if you are not allowed to join.
- Your arguments must be relevant and not just repeat what other parties have already said.
- The interest must be more than just a general concern—it must be specific to you.
- Constitutional bodies like the Parliamentary Service Commission can join cases that affect their legal duties.
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated 19th October 2018 seeking joinder of the Parliamentary Service Commission as an Interested Party be and is hereby is allowed.
- 2.Each Party shall bear their own respective costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 25(c), 50(1), 127(1), 6(e)(i) of the Constitution of Kenya; Sections 3 and 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act, 2012; Rules 3 and 25(1) of the Supreme Court Rules 2012
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 Application dated 19th October 2018 seeking joinder of the Parliamentary Service Commission as an Interested Party be and is hereby is allowed.
Each Party shall bear their own respective costs.
The personal interest or stake that the party has in the matter must be set out in the application. The interest must be clearly identifiable and must be proximate enough, to stand apart from anything that is merely peripheral.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Joinder criteria now clearer
When advising clients on joining Supreme Court cases, ensure they can show a personal, proximate interest, potential prejudice from non-joinder, and that their submissions add value. Use the three-part Muruatetu test explicitly in applications. This ruling confirms that even unopposed applications must meet these standards.
Protect your stake in court cases
If a pending court case could affect your business interests—like contracts, licenses, or regulations—you may apply to join as an interested party. Prepare evidence of your direct stake, how you'd be harmed if excluded, and what unique perspective you bring. This ruling shows courts will consider such requests seriously.
Your right to join a case
If you have a personal interest in a Supreme Court case—for example, it involves your rights or obligations—you can ask to join. You must explain your specific interest, the harm you'd face if left out, and why your input matters. This ruling sets a clear path for individuals to participate in cases that affect them.
Frequently asked questions
#What is an interested party in a Kenyan Supreme Court case?+
An interested party is someone who is not the main claimant or respondent but has a direct stake in the case. In Kenya, you must show a personal, close interest, potential harm if excluded, and that your arguments are relevant and not just repeating others.
How do I apply to join a Supreme Court case in Kenya?+
File an application explaining your personal interest in the matter, the prejudice you would suffer if not joined, and how your submissions will add value. The court will assess these criteria, as shown in the Parliamentary Service Commission case.
Can a government body join a Supreme Court case in Kenya?+
Yes, as seen here, the Parliamentary Service Commission—a constitutional body—was allowed to join. Any entity with a direct legal or constitutional interest can apply, provided it meets the joinder criteria.
What happens if no one opposes a joinder application in Kenya?+
Even if unopposed, the court still checks that the applicant meets the legal criteria. In this case, the application was unopposed, but the court verified the Commission's interest before allowing it.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Assemblies Forum v Attorney General & 3 others; Parliamentary Service Commission (Proposed Interested Party)", Case Analysis (2020). Petition 22 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2020/58/eng@2020-01-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.