Senate & 3 others v Speaker of the National Assembly & 10 others
The bottom line
#Supreme Court grants final 120-day extension for Senate and National Assembly to settle bicameral dispute out of court.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court gave the Senate and National Assembly one last chance to negotiate and settle their dispute over how bills are processed. The court extended the deadline by 120 days because both sides were making progress. If they don't settle, the case will be heard urgently. The court encouraged them to use alternative dispute resolution as required by the Constitution.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant has satisfied the principles for extension of time to conclude out of court negotiations and record a consent.
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient reason for extension of time to conclude negotiations.
The court found that the applicant had sufficiently explained the delay and demonstrated ongoing negotiations, including the development of draft Bills and parliamentary recess.
The court considered the affidavit evidence from the Solicitor General and the Clerk of the National Assembly, which detailed a series of meetings, the submission of draft Bills, and the parliamentary recess. The court also noted that the appellants themselves had confirmed the existence of a technical team engaged in negotiations during the July 11, 2023 mention. The court was satisfied that the reasons for the delay were plausible and that significant progress had been made.
Whether the application was filed without undue delay.
The application was filed four days before the deadline set by the court, and therefore there was no undue delay.
The court noted that the motion was filed on September 7, 2023, prior to the September 11, 2023 deadline set in its amended directions of July 18, 2023. This timely filing satisfied the court that there was no undue delay.
Legal principles established
#- Supreme Court has jurisdiction to extend time under rule 15(5) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020.
- Court must promote alternative dispute resolution under Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution and section 29C(1) of the Supreme Court Act.
- Extension of time requires showing sufficient reason and no undue delay.
- Filing an application before the deadline demonstrates no undue delay.
- Ongoing negotiations and documented progress justify an extension of time.
- Costs of an extension application depend on the outcome of negotiations.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's notice of motion dated September 7, 2023 be and is hereby allowed to the extent that parties are granted, from the date of this ruling, a final one hundred and twenty (120) days extension to complete out of court negotiations and record a consent to compromise this appeal.
- 2.In the event that parties reach a settlement they shall file the written terms of the settlement before this court on or before the expiration of the one hundred and twenty (120) days aforesaid.
- 3.In any case the appeal shall be mentioned before the hon Deputy Registrar on March 15, 2024 to confirm the status.
- 4.Should the parties fail to reach a settlement, the matter shall be set down for hearing on a priority basis.
- 5.Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of negotiations.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not explicitly stated in this ruling; the main appeal is SC Petition No. 1 of 2022
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.
Whereas this court by the provisions of rule 15(5) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020, has jurisdiction to extend the time limited by either the Rules or by a decision of the court and guided by the principles well enunciated in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others, SC Application No 16 of 2014; [2014] eKLR
we continue to be guided in steering this dispute towards a possible settlement by the provisions of section 29C (1) of the Supreme Court Act that provides that; 'In the conduct of proceedings, the court shall promote and encourage alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, in accordance with article 159 (2) (c) of the Constitution.'
The applicant's notice of motion dated September 7, 2023 be and is hereby allowed to the extent that parties are granted, from the date of this ruling, a final one hundred and twenty(120) days extension to complete out of court negotiations and record a consent to compromise this appeal.
Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of negotiations.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Extension of time strategy for negotiations
When representing parties in public interest disputes, proactively document all negotiation steps. The court accepted evidence of meetings, draft bills, and parliamentary recess as sufficient reason. File extension applications before deadlines to avoid undue delay. Use Article 159(2)(c) to support ADR.
Impact on legislative certainty
Businesses relying on clear bicameral procedures should monitor this case. The extension delays final resolution of how bills are processed between Senate and National Assembly. If settlement fails, priority hearing may provide clarity. Engage legal counsel to assess potential effects on pending legislation affecting your sector.
Your role in legislative disputes
As a citizen, you can follow this case to understand how Parliament resolves internal conflicts. The Supreme Court encourages negotiation over litigation. If you have an interest in a specific bill, note that delays in settling this dispute may affect how future bills become law. Stay informed through public court mentions.
Frequently asked questions
#What is the Senate vs National Assembly case in Kenya about?+
It's a Supreme Court dispute over how bills are processed between the two houses of Parliament. The court is giving them time to negotiate a settlement on bicameral relations.
Why did the Supreme Court extend time for negotiations in Kenya?+
The court found both houses were making progress through meetings and draft bills. It granted a final 120-day extension to allow them to settle out of court, as required by the Constitution.
What happens if the Senate and National Assembly don't settle in Kenya?+
If no settlement is reached within 120 days, the Supreme Court will set the appeal for hearing on a priority basis. The case will then be decided by the court.
How does Article 159(2)(c) affect this Kenyan case?+
Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution requires courts to promote alternative dispute resolution. The Supreme Court used this to justify encouraging the parties to negotiate rather than litigate.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Senate & 3 others v Speaker of the National Assembly & 10 others", Case Analysis (2023). Petition (Application) 19 (E027) of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2023/95/eng@2023-11-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.