Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealPartially AllowedConstitutional Reference from Mombasa Chief Magistrate's Court Criminal Case (charge under section 79 of the Penal Code)· [1998] KECA 10 (KLR)

Ali Said Chizondo & 2 Others v Republic

High Court of Kenya
20 May 1998
1,909 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

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

#
Three accused persons charged in the Mombasa Chief Magistrate's Court with taking part in an unlawful assembly contrary to section 79 of the Penal Code raised a preliminary question that the charge contravened their freedom of assembly and association guaranteed by section 80 of the Constitution. The Chief Magistrate, holding the question neither frivolous nor vexatious, referred it to the High Court under section 84(3) of the Constitution. Before Ang'awa, J., counsel debated the proper procedure and bench composition; the Judge, lamenting the absence of rules made under section 84(6), held the matter a constitutional reference under section 67(3) requiring a three-judge bench and placed the file before the Chief Justice for directions. Before Chesoni, CJ, both counsel jointly submitted the reference involved enforcement of fundamental rights, not constitutional interpretation. The Chief Justice agreed, distinguishing the High Court's 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). He held that a single judge may competently exercise the section 84(3) referral jurisdiction; the three-judge 'constitutional court' practice is conventional, resting on the gravity of the questions, and remains intact except where wrongly applied to enforcement questions. Applying Jaundoo v Attorney-General of Guyana and In re Meister, Lucius and Brining Ltd, he held that in the absence of rules under section 84(6), redress may be sought by plaint, Order 53, or originating motion, so the Judge's complaint about missing rules was unfounded. He directed that the reference be heard and determined by a single judge at Mombasa High Court. No costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Nature of the reference - interpretation or enforcement of rights

Holding

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.

Reasoning

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.

p. 2
02

Quorum for hearing a section 84(3) reference

Holding

A single judge may competently exercise the referral jurisdiction under section 84(3); the three-judge practice is conventional, not mandatory, in such cases.

Reasoning

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.

p. 4
03

Complaint about absence of rules under section 84(6)

Holding

The learned Judge's lament about the lack of rules of practice and procedure was misplaced because elaborate procedures already exist.

Reasoning

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. 1.That the referral jurisdiction in the case can competently be exercised by a single judge
  2. 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
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)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ali Said Chizondo & 2 Others v Republic", 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.