Narok County Government v The Senate & 1 other
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
#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
- 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)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Narok County Government v The Senate & 1 other", 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.