[330] In addressing the above issue, we note that in rendering an advisory
opinion In Re The Matter of the Interim Independent Electoral
Commission119, this Supreme Court noted [paragraph 43]:
“Quite clearly, the High Court has been entrusted with
the mandate to interpret the Constitution. This
empowerment by itself, however, does not confer upon
the High Court an exclusive jurisdiction; for, by the
appellate process, both the Court of Appeal and the
Supreme Court are equally empowered to interpret
the Constitution, certainly in respect of matters
resolved at first instance by the High Court. And while
the Advisory-Opinion jurisdiction is exclusively
entrusted to the Supreme Court, the Constitution does
not provide that this Court while rendering an
opinion, may not interpret the Constitution. Indeed,
interpretation of the Constitution stands to be
conducted, for different purposes and at different
stages, by a vast array of constitutional organs: so,
for instance, the State Law Office in advising
Government Ministries, is entitled to interpret the
Constitution as may be necessary; and the several
independent Commissions under the Constitution are
similarly entitled to interpret the Constitution as part
of the performance of their respective mandates. The
Supreme Court too, for the purpose of rendering an
Advisory Opinion, may take its position as guided by
its own interpretation of the Constitution. Only where
litigation takes place entailing issues of constitutional
interpretation, must the matter come in the first place
before the High Court, with the effect that
interpretation of the Constitution by both the Court of
Appeal and the Supreme Court will have been limited
to the appellate stages.”
In Re The Matter of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission, Reference No. 2 of 2011; [2011]
eKLR.
119
Presidential
Petition
No.
1
of
2017
143
|
P a g e
Select target paragraph3
Connect to a paragraph
Connect to an entity
Disable highlights
Add to table of contents