Goldenberg Commission of Inquiry Report - Mars Group Kenya

this and further sittings of this Judicial Commission of
Inquiry to the 15 th day of April 2003 at 9.30 a.m. by which
time we hope, the amicus curiae would have taken
necessary legal steps to have the aforesaid order either
vacated or stayed.
Made this 1 st day of April 2003.
S.E.O. BOSIRE D.K.S. AGANYANYA P. LE PELLEY
CHAIRMAN VICE-CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONER”
21. Indeed the amicus curiae moved the Court of Appeal in Misc. Civil
Application No. NAI. 77 of 2003, for an order staying the aforesaid order
of the High Court. That court after hearing the parties made an order in
pertinent part, in these terms:
“We are equally satisfied that the Commission itself must
be given an opportunity to deal with the complaints raised
by the Respondent against some of its members.
Accordingly … the Commission is directed to resume its
sittings and other operations as soon as is reasonably
practicable. The Commission is further directed that at its
first sitting pursuant to this order it must accord to the
Respondent the chance to ventilate his complaints against
its two members and thereafter the commission must
consider those complaints and give its ruling thereon.”
22. The respondent in that application was Mr. Job Kilach. In
obedience to the aforesaid Court of Appeal order, we heard Mr. Wambua
Kilonzo counsel for Mr. Kilach not only on the issues raised in High
Court Misc. Application No.304 of 2003, but also on several other new
matters. In the application before us he included two additional
complainants, namely Goldenberg International Ltd and Mr. Kamlesh
Pattni. In a ruling delivered on 16 th April, 2003 we dismissed the
complaints. No sooner had we done so than Mr. Kilonzo made a further
informal application seeking an order that we stay further hearings of the
Commission principally, on the ground that Mr. Kilach’s application
before the High Court was still pending and he did not think that it
would be proper for us to continue. Our ruling on that issue was as
follows:
“We cannot stay our proceedings because we are under
orders of the Court of Appeal to carry on. If we do so, we
will be in contempt of the orders of the Court of Appeal.
So, we carry on”.