REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE INTERIM INDEPENDENT CONSTITUTIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION

COURT AT NAIROBI
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF SECTIONS 1, 1A, 3, 9,
15A, 23, 24, 30, 41, 41A, 41B, 46, 47, 47A, 59, 62, 75, 77, 78, 82, 108,
110, 123 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTIONS OF SECTIONS 3, 4, 6, 23,

24, 30, 32, 33 AND 34 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA REVIEW
COMMISSION ACT, 2008 (ACT NO. 9 OF 2008)

CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 5 OF 2010

BETWEEN
ALICE WAITHERA MWAURA }
CONSOLATA WANJIRU MUCUKA }
PAULINA WAMBUI NJUGUNA }
MARGARET NJERI GAKIO }
BENINA KAWIRA NJERU }
BELTA KALONDU MUTUKU } PETITIONERS
PETER NDIRANGU KARIUKI }
JOHN MAINA }
STEPHEN OKINDA }
RONALD ONZERE }
JAMES KIIRU NDERITU }
JOHN MBURU KIARIE }
SUSAN NYAGULUI }

VERSUS

THE COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS 1ST

RESPONDENT
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL 2ND RESPONDENT
THE INTERIM INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION 3RD
RESPONDENT

PETITIONERS’ SKELETON SUBMISSIONS

My Ladies and Lords,

May it please you that the Petitioners herein have placed before you a
Petition dated 9th July, 2010 in which they question several provisions of the
Proposed New Constitution (PCK) published on 6th May, 2010. The Petitioners
are conscious of the fact that the role of the Court is judicial in nature and so
they have strived as much as possible to question only matters of
compliance with the laws governing the constitution-making process and
correspondingly eschewed matters of political contestation that continues to
be flesh-out in the ongoing Referendum campaigns.
The constitutional review process is governed by two basic laws namely:-

1. The Constitution.

2. The Constitution of Kenya Review Act (Act No. 9 of 2008), hereinafter

CKRA, 2008.

At the end of its principal statutory functions the Committee of Experts (CoE)
came up with a draft Constitution which is largely the same as the Proposed
Constitution of Kenya (PCK) that was published by the Hon. Attorney General
on 6th May, 2010.

The Petition herein challenges the legality of various provisions of the PCK
revolving around breach of the Constitution, CKRA, 2008 and other statutes.
Towards this end the Petitioners have filed the following pleadings and
affidavits:-

1. Petition dated 9th July, 2010.

2. Verifying Affidavit sworn by Alice Waithera Mwaura on 9th July, 2010.

3. Supplementary Verifying Affidavit sworn by Alice Waithera Mwaura on

20th July, 2010.

4. Affidavit sworn by Kibe Mungai Advocate on 22nd July, 2010.

We propose to make our submissions on the basis of the reliefs sought.

I. PRAYERS (a), (b), (c) AND (d) OF THE PETITION

These prayers provide as follows:-

a) A declaration be issued to declare that the inclusion of Articles

2(5) and 2(6) on general rules of international and treaty or
conventions is illegal and violates the sovereignty of the Republic
of Kenya and supremacy of the Constitution for being in breach
of sections 4(a) and 6(e) of the Constitution of Kenya Review Act,
2008 and Sections 1, 1A and 3A of the Constitution.

b) A declaration be issued that the omission or deletion of

provisions of provisions of the Bomas Draft and Proposed New
Constitution on the Laws of Kenya by the First Respondent is
illegal for being in breach of sections 6(d) and (e) of the
Constitution of Kenya Review Act, 2008.

c) A declaration be issued that Chapter One of the Proposed

Constitution of Kenya is fundamentally defective for omitting the
provisions of the Wako draft and the Proposed New Constitution,
 2005 on the laws of Kenya in contravention of Section 6(d) and
(e) of the Constitution of Kenya Review Act, 2008.

d) A mandatory order of injunction be issued to compel the First

and Second Respondents to insert the following provisions as
Article 3A of the Proposed Constitution of Kenya:

3A. The laws of Kenya comprise this Constitution and each of the
following to the extent that it is consistent with this
Constitution:

a. laws enacted under this Constitution;

b. the Acts of Parliament in force immediately before

the effective date;

c. any other law that was recognized by the courts as

part of the laws of Kenya immediately before the effective
date;

d. personal laws of the peoples of Kenya;

e. the rules of law generally known as the common law,

or the doctrines of equity; as they relate to the practice and
procedures of the courts;

f. the East African Community Law; and

g. customary international law, and international

agreements, applicable to Kenya.

These prayers are supported by Grounds (q) and (r) of the Petition which for
ease of reference are set out below:-

q) Article 2(5) and (6) of the PCK on supremacy of the Constitution are
unconstitutional and unlawful in that:-

i. Sub-Articles (5) and (6) on general rules of International Law

and treaties have nothing to do with the supremacy of the
Constitution of Kenya and should therefore be quashed or
deleted.

ii. The effect of including the said provisions on international law

and treaties is to place such laws at par with the Constitution
thereby negating and whittling down Kenya’s sovereignty.

iii. Sub-Articles (5) and (6) were illegally inserted by the CoE in
contravention of the CKRA, 2008.
 iv. There is no public consensus whatsoever about the inclusion
of those offensive provisions in the supremacy clause of the
Constitution.

v. In view of the foregoing Article 143(4) of the PCK which allows

for prosecution of a serving Kenyan President for a crime
under any international treaty ratified by Kenya should be
expunged on similar grounds.

r) Chapter One of the PCK is fundamentally defective for having deleted

provisions of previous draft constitutions stipulating the laws of Kenya
and hierarchy thereof. Specifically the Bomas draft and the Proposed
New Constitution, 2005 provided as follows in Sections 3 and 3A
thereof:-

3A. The laws of Kenya comprise this Constitution and each of the
following to the extent that it is consistent with this Constitution:

a. laws enacted under this Constitution;

b. the Acts of Parliament in force immediately before the

effective date;

c. any other law that was recognized by the courts as part

of the laws of Kenya immediately before the effective
date;

d. personal laws of the peoples of Kenya;

e. the rules of law generally known as the common law, or

the doctrines of equity as they relate to the practice and
procedures of the courts;

f. the East African Community Law; and

g. customary international law and international

agreements applicable to Kenya.

The Petitioners contend that the re-introduction of the said provisions

is necessary because of or in order:-

i. To uphold the supremacy of the Constitution.

ii. To ensure that any law enacted under or pursuant to the

ratification of the Constitution complies with the Constitution.

iii. To restate the fact that customary international law and

international agreements do not enjoy parity with the Kenyan
Constitution and indeed must be consistent with it.
 iv. It was removed unlawfully by the COE despite there being no
contention about it.

v. The removal of the said clauses was actuated by ulterior

motives namely to place international law at par with the
Kenyan Constitution and to justify the removal of legal
immunity of a serving Kenyan President.

vi. It will protect Kenya’s sovereignty from being trifled with by

international “good Samaritans”.

These four prayers relate to the controversial matter of international law

under Article 2 of the Act. The genesis of the controversy is simply that after
the CoE provided for international law under the supremacy clause of the
constitution a serious issues has arisen as to whether the new Constitution
will supercede international law in the event of conflict between them. As
currently provided for in Article 2 international law will have the same status
as the Kenya Constitution and in this sense will supercede Kenyan legislation
in the event of conflict. The above contentions are borne out by the
following:-

a) Although the provisions on the laws of Kenya was not one of the
contentious issues, the CoE secretly deleted Section 3A of the
Bomas draft and 3 of the PNC, 2005 both of which had similar
provisions in which international law was expressly subordinated to
the Constitution.

b) Under Article 143(4) of the PCK the constitutional immunity of the

President does not extend to a crime for which the President may
be prosecuted under any treaty to which Kenya is a party and which
prohibits such immunity.

II. PRAYERS (e) AND (f) OF THE PETITION

These prayers provide as follows:-

e) A declaration be issued that Article 8 of the PCK does not

faithfully reflect the wishes of the people of Kenya on the
relationship between the State and religion embodied in the
following provisions of both the Bomas draft and the Proposed
New Constitution, 2005.

i) State and religion shall be separate.

ii) There shall be no state religion.
iii) The state shall treat all religions equally.
 contrary to Sections 4(h) and 6(d) and (e) of the Constitution of
Kenya Review Act, 2008.

f) A mandatory injunction be issued to compel the first and second

Respondent to delete Article 8 of the PCK and substitute it with
the following provision:

i) State and religion shall be separate.

ii) There shall be no state religion.
iii) The state shall treat all religions equally

Under paragraphs 7(b) of the Petition the above prayers are based on the
following grounds:

b) The provisions of Article 8 of the PCK are both incomplete and

unlawfully “edited” in that:-

i. The relationship between the state and religion under Article 8

does not faithfully reflect the views of Kenyans as enshrined in the
CKRC draft, the Bomas draft, the Proposed New Constitution, 2005
hereinafter referred to as “PNC, 2005” and the Harmonized Draft
published on 17th November, 2009.

ii. The said Article 8 does not embody the agreed consensus of the
relationship of the state and religion set out in the following similar
terms under all the drafts referred to by Section 29 of the CKRA,
2008.

i) State and religion shall be separate.

ii) There shall be no state religion.
iii) The state shall treat all religions equally.

Further the non-contention about the relationship between the state and
religion is borne by the fact that Article 10 of the HDC published on 17 th
November, 2010 is exactly similar as in the Bomas and Wako drafts. The
questions therefore arise: Why and how did the CoE change that provision
and at the behest of which section of Kenyans, if any? Is that change lawful?

III. PRAYERS (g) AND (h) OF THE PETITION

The said prayers are as follows:-

g) A declaration be issued that the First Respondent inserted

Articles 14(2), (3) and (4) of the PCK illegally and the same are null
and void for being in contravention of sections 6(e), 32 and 33 of
the Constitution of Kenya Review Act, 2008.
 h) THAT an order of certiorari be issued to quash and expunge
Articles 14(2), (3) and (4) of the PCK.

The above reliefs are supported by grounds 7(c) of the Petition which state
as follows:-

c) The Committee of Experts has unlawfully broadened the Right to

Citizenship by birth under Article 14, 16 and 17 in that:-

i. Under Article 16(2) citizenship is extended to non-citizens born

outside who becomes Kenyan citizens by birth so long as either
the mother or father of the person is or was a citizen.

ii. Under Article 14(4) any child found in Kenya who is or appears
to be less than eight years of age, and whose nationality and
parents are not known, will be presumed to be citizens by birth.

iii. The effect of such easy acquisition of Kenyan citizenship by

birth is to degrade the worth of citizenship by birth of Kenyans
actually born in the country and their children who cannot
enjoy such reciprocal rights in other countries whose citizens
can enjoy the entitlements of Kenyan citizens set out in Article
12 of the PCK.

iv. Given that the chapter of citizenship was not contentious the
changes effected on the same by the CoE have no justification
and certainly lack genuine consensus among Kenyans.

The Petitioners further contend that the broadening of the right to Kenyan
Citizenship by birth makes it virtually worthless for anyone to be actually
born and grow up in Kenya as people who are not even interested to be
Kenyans citizens have been declared Kenyans by birth by statutory fiat of
the CoE. Moreover so long as citizenship by birth is acquired by the fact of
birth within the Kenyan territory it is curious how proposed the Kenya
Constitution goes about presuming foreigners to be Kenyans. Finally as long
as eight year old Kenyan children found loitering in any of the neighbouring
countries will not be presumed citizens of those countries, it makes no sense
for Kenya to open up its porous border and citizenship rights to any refugees’
children that may escape or lifted out of their camps or walk into the Kenyan
territory!

IV. PRAYERS (i) AND (j) OF THE PETITION

The said reliefs are as follows:-

g) THAT a declaration be issued that the omission by the First

Respondent of the provision in sub-paragraph (vi) of the New
Constitution of Kenya, 2005 from Article 24 of the PCK
 contravenes sections 6(e), 30, 32 and 33 of the Constitution of
Kenya Review Act, 2008.

h) THAT an order of mandamus be issued to compel the First and

Second Respondent to insert the following provision as Article
24(2)(d) of the PCK:

The protection of national security, public safety, public

order, public morality or public health.

This relief is supported by the grounds set out as follows in paragraph 7(d) of
the Petition as follows:-

d) Article 24 of the PCK on limitation of rights and fundamental

freedoms is fundamentally defective or incomplete for having
omitted sub-paragraph (vi) of Section 34(1)(b) of the proposed New
Constitution of Kenya, 2005 which provides as follows:-

(vi) The protection of national security public safety, public order,

public morality or public health.

The Petitioners contend that the omission by the CoE to include the
said sub-paragraph of the PNC, 2005 poses a serious threat to
national security in that:-

i. Under Section 70 of the current Constitution, the limitation of

fundamental rights and freedoms on the ground of national
security, public order, public interest et cetera is
contemplated in the Bill of Rights provisions.

ii. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, the

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms, 1950 and other International
conventions allow limitation of rights and freedoms in the
grounds aforementioned.

iii. The omission of that clause will create a legal vacuum around
the constitutionality of the various statutes that deal with
public order, national security and other public interest
concerns. These statutes include the Public Order Act, Police
Act, Preservation of Public Security Act and the NSIS Act.

iv. The second consequence of the omission in Article 24 is that

the omission will create a blackhole in matters of public order
and national security.

We submit that contrary to popular opinion the omission of the above

proviso as a basis for limitation will create room for enactment of statutes of
doubtful constitutionality.
In our considered view all modern constitutions contain restrictions on or
limitations to the enjoyment of rights and freedoms. Accordingly, a good
constitution must contemplate or make provision for such restrictions or
limitations to ensure that all legislation on public order and national security
matters will conform to the permissible test under the Constitution.
Moreover, ignorance of the public per se is a bad reason for the PCK to omit
a necessary constitutional provision.

V. PRAYERS (k) AND (l) OF THE PETITION

The prayers provide as follows:-

k) THAT a declaration be issued to declare that Articles 26(2) and

(4) of the PCK are null and void ab initio for having been inserted
in contravention of sections 6(e), 30, 32 and 33 of the
Constitution of Kenya Review Act, 2008.

l) THAT an order of certiorari be issued to quash and/or expunge

Articles 26(2) and (4) of the PCK.

These prayers are supported by ground 7(e) of the Petition which is set out
below:-

e) Article 26(2) and (4) desecrate, vitiate, negate and compromise the
Right to Life in that:-

i. They are not integral or incidental to the right to life.

ii. The issue of when life begins and whether abortion should be
permitted are unsettled, dicey and controversial matters of
scientific, religious, ideological and moral controversy that
cannot be genuinely resolved through constitutional
entrenchment.

iii. Given that the Bill of Rights was not one of the contentious
issues, the changes contained in sub-Articles (2) and (3) are
partisan matters that were inserted without any broad or
lawful public consultation.

iv. In view of the fact that a foetus per se is not a person under
the laws of any civilized country in the world and abortion
relates to termination of the presumed life of a foetus, a
prohibition in relation thereof belongs in the Penal laws rather
than the Bill of Rights which deals with the rights and
freedoms of persons.

v. To the extent that Article 4(4) is supposed to contain a

prohibition against abortion, the words used misrepresents
 the intention of those Kenyans in favour of it because far from
prescribing a prohibition those words actually grants a
qualified right of abortion which majority of Kenyans are
clearly not in favour of.

Given the fact that termination of pregnancy has no direct relationship with
the right to life the unintended consequence of Article 26 is that the sanctity
of the undoubted right to life of actual human beings has been desecrated
and trivialized by the controversy on abortion which will not end even if the
PCK is ratified by Kenyans on 4th August, 2010.

VI. PRAYERS (m) AND (n) OF THE PETITION

These prayers provide as follows:-

m) THAT a declaration be issued to declare that the vesting of

community land in communities identified on the basis of
ethnicity, cultural and similar community of interest violates
Section 75, 82, 114 and 115 of the Constitution and Sections 4
and 6 of the CKRA, 2008.

n) THAT a mandatory order of injunction be issued to compel the

first and second Respondents to delete the words “and be held
by communities identified on the basis of ethnicity, culture or
similar community of interest” in Article 63(1) of the Proposed
Constitution of Kenya and replace them with the words “the
community within whose area of jurisdiction is situated for the
benefit of the persons ordinarily resident on that land”.

The above prayers are supported by ground 7(f) as follows;

f) Article 63(1) which purports to vest community land in

communities identified on the basis of ethnicity, culture or
similar community of interest is unlawful in that:-

i. Land cannot vest in and be held by communities as only

individuals or legal persons have capacity to be vested with
property rights.

ii. Article 63(1) is discriminatory of itself and in its effect within

the meaning of Section 82 of the Constitution. Moreover, the
said provision negates Article 27 of the PNC in so far as the
right to equality and freedom from discrimination in relation
to ownership of land is concerned.

iii. There is no reason why the Committee of Experts is stripping

away proprietary right or interest of some of the Kenyans
“ordinarily resident” in trust land areas within the meaning of
Sections 114 and 115 of the Constitution.
 iv. Contrary to Sections 4(a) of the CKRA, 2008, Article 63(1) will
subvert or undermine peace, national unity and integrity of
the Republic of Kenya.

VII. PRAYERS (o) – (v) OF THE PETITION

All these prayers relate to the Sixth Schedule and they provide as follows:-

o) THAT a declaration be issued to declare that Section 2(1) (a) of

the Sixth Schedule is unconstitutional for being inconsistent with
Sections 41(13), 41B(11) and 47A of the Constitution.

p) THAT a declaration be issued declaring that Section 9(2) of the

Sixth Schedule is unconstitutional for being inconsistent with
Sections 15A(5) and 59(4) of the Constitution and Section 6 of
the National Accord and Reconciliation Act (No. 4) of 2008.

q) THAT a declaration be issued declaring that Sections 23 and 24

of the Sixth Schedule is unconstitutional for being inconsistent
with and in violation of Sections 62, 77 and 123(8) of the
Constitution.

r) THAT a declaration be issued declaring that Section 26 of the

Sixth Schedule is unconstitutional for being inconsistent with and
in violation of Sections 24, 30, 46 and 123(8) of the Constitution.

s) THAT a declaration be issued declaring that Sections 27 and 28

of the Sixth Schedule are unconstitutional for being inconsistent
with and in violation of Sections 41B(11), 41(13) and 47A of the
Constitution.

t) THAT a declaration be issued declaring the Section 29(2) of the

Sixth Schedule is unconstitutional for being in violation of
Sections 15A, 23, 24, 30, 34, 47 and 47A of the Constitutional
and Section 4 of the National Accord and Reconciliation Act.

u) THAT a declaration be issued declaring that Section 31(7) of the

Sixth Schedule is unconstitutional for being inconsistent with and
in violation of Sections 109 and 110 of the Constitution and
Sections 4 and 6 of the CKRA, 2008.

v) THAT an order of certiorari be issued to quash and/or expunge

Sections 2(1)(a), 9(2), 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29(2) and 31(7) of the
Proposed Constitution of Kenya.

These prayers are supported by grounds (i) to (p) of the Petition (pages 7 –
11). The principal issue raised is that the Sixth Schedule contains provisions
that either render the implementation of the new Constitution uncertain, if
not impossible, and make a constitutional crisis imminent unless this
Honourable Court averts that eventuality by granting the reliefs sought.

VIII. PRAYERS (w) AND (x) OF THE PETITION

These prayers provide as follows:-

w) THAT a declaration be issued to declare that the First Schedule of

the Proposed Constitution of Kenya is unconstitutional for being
null and void, inconsistent with and in violation of Section 41B of
the Constitution and Sections 23, 30, 32, 33 and 34 of the CKRA,
2008.

x) THAT an order of certiorari be issued to quash and/or expunge

the First Schedule of the Proposed Constitution of Kenya.

The above prayers are supported by ground (a) of the Petition and the
Supplementary Verifying Affidavit sworn by Alice Waithera Mwaura on 20th
July, 2010. The Petitioners contend as follows in ground (a):-

a) The First Schedule of the PCK made pursuant to Article

6(1) is illegal, null and void for the following reasons:-

ii. The CoE has no statutory power to divide Kenya into the counties
specified in the First Schedule.

iii. The division of Kenyan territory into the counties specified in the
First Schedule is unconstitutional, arbitrary, undemocratic and a
gross abuse of power.

iv. The function of dividing the Kenyan territory into political units
belongs to either the Interim Independent Boundaries Review
Commission established under Section 41A of the Constitution or
the Interim Electoral and Boundaries Commission under Article
88 of the PCK.

v. Under the First Schedule of the PCK the political status of Nairobi
Province has unconstitutionally and arbitrarily been degraded
from that of a province to a district with dire consequences to
the political and voting rights of its residents who include the
Petitioners herein.

These prayers can hardly be over-emphasized. The PCK is the by-product of

a process ultimately hinged in the current Constitution that declares in
Section 1A that the Republic of Kenya shall be a multiparty democratic state.
According to British Politics In Focus edited by David Roberts, Second
Edition, Causeway Press the term democracy means or implies the
following:-

Democracy means that power is ultimately in the hands of the whole

population and no smaller group has the right to rule. Today, liberal
democracies are representative democracies whose authority stems
from the whole adult population voting in fair and free elections where
there is open competition. Democracy is a simple idea based on two
principles – popular control and political equality. Democracy requires
that the rules and policies of any group should be subject to control by
all its members. Also, the members of the group should have equal
influence over the framing of its rules and policies. In a small group,
these two principles can be realized directly. In a larger group, they
can only be realized indirectly through the agency of chosen
representatives. In a representative democracy, popular control
means exercising control over the decision makers. It should be noted
that democracy is not an all or nothing affair. It is a matter of degree –
of the extent to which the two principles of popular control and political
equality are realized in practice.

These tenets of democracy were underscored in the Report of the

Independent Review Commission on the General Elections held in Kenya on
27th December. 2007 popularly known as the Kriegler Report as follows:-

The fundamental tenet of democracy is the statement in Article 21 of

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “The will of the people shall
be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be
expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal
and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent
free voting procedures.” The principle is repeated in many other
international instruments. Proportional representation (PR) electoral
systems aim to ensure the equality of the vote, at least to a
considerable degree. However, in the case of systems based on
plurality (or majority), as is the case in Kenya, the drawing of
constituency boundaries is a central issue.

Practically all legal electoral frameworks establish equality of the vote

as the main principle, and enunciate several reasons for departure.
Kenya is no exception. Both the principle and the reasons for
departure are standard in comparative practice but there are
significant differences in the extent of the permitted departure from
the basic principle of equality of the vote. The USA is the classic
example of allowing only minimal departure from the average. The
Supreme Court, in Karcher vs. Dagget, considered that even a 0.7%
deviation from the mean was unacceptable. The UK is probably the
case were the largest departures are admitted: up to 25%.

The problem in Kenya is that the maximum permitted departure is not

fixed and has been seen to allow extreme differences in size:
 Embakasi is 351% greater than the average while Lamu East is
only 18% of the average. As a consequence, the weight of the
vote cast by a Lamu East voter is nineteen times greater than
that of one in Embakasi. In no other country in the world is the
difference of such magnitude. The reasons for the present
situation are related to the introduction of the multiparty system – the
skewed size of constituencies was related to the splitting up of small
and sparsely populated constituencies in KANU strongholds of Rift
Valley, Western, North Eastern and Coast provinces (emphasis
supplied).

Section 4(b) of the CKRA, 2008 expressly states that one of the principal
objects and purpose of constitutional review process is to establish a free
and democratic system of government that, inter-alia, guarantees good
governance, constitutionalism and the rule of law. In many ways the CoE
and other organs of the review process have endeavoured to comply with
the said provision but they have terribly failed the province of Nairobi in the
allocation of political power to such an extent that one wonders whether the
PCK is justified when it declares in Article 10(2) as follows:-

10 (2) The National values and principles of governances include –

a) patriotism, national unity, sharing and devolution of power, the

rule of law, democracy and participation of the people;

b) human dignity, equity, social justice, inclusiveness, equality,

human rights, non-discrimination and protection of the
marginalized;

c) good governance, integrity, transparency and accountability;

and

d) sustainable development.

In view of the following we urge this Honourable Court to grant the reliefs sought so
that in the end Kenyans may have a better Constitution than the PCK offers. We are
most obliged.

DATED at Nairobi this day of 2010.

________________________ ______
KINOTI & KIBE CO.
ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONERS

DRAWN & FILED BY:

KINOTI & KIBE CO.
ADVOCATES
QUEENSWAY HOUSE, 5TH FLOOR
KAUNDA STREET
P.O BOX 298761-00202,
NAIROBI

TO BE SERVED UPON:
PHEROZE NOWROJEE, ADVOCATE
NAIROBI

KIMANI MUHORO & CO.

ADVOCATES
EMBASSY HOUSE, 6TH FLOOR
HARAMBEE AVENUE
P.O. BOX 52431-00200
NAIROBI

THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL

STATE LAW OFFICES
SHERIA HOUSE
HARAMBEE AVENUE
NAIROBI