REPUBLIC OF KENYA - The Judiciary

[114] I have keenly perused the majority ruling of the Court and I do
concur with the rendition of facts and relevant laws meticulously
considered therein.
I am in agreement with the conclusion of the
majority Court that:
“Such canvassing of Section 14 of the Supreme Court Act,
and more particularly, the fact that it touched on
jurisdiction … required the Court to consider the
constitutionality of that Section; and the outcome, in the
circumstances, would stand as
a declaration of status in rem.”
[115] I also concur that the Court, while considering the question of
jurisdiction, looked into the relevant provisions of Article 163 and
Section 23 of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of Kenya,
2010, and arrived at the only conclusion that it could – an affirmation
that Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v. Kenya Commercial
Bank Limited & Two Others, Supreme Court Application No. 2 of
2011 (Macharia Case), was rightly decided, and was correct in its
finding on the unconstitutionality of Section 14 of the Supreme Court
Act, 2011, insofar as it purported to give the Supreme Court a ‘special
jurisdiction’.
66