The Doctrine of Avoidance in Kenya is a fundamental principle in Kenyan constitutional law, emphasizing that courts should refrain from deciding constitutional issues when a matter can be resolved on other legal grounds. This doctrine ensures judicial efficiency and respects the separation of powers by allowing non-constitutional issues to be addressed through appropriate legal channels.
In this article, we will explore the Doctrine of Avoidance in Kenya, its application in recent case law, and its implications for legal practice.
Understanding the Doctrine of Avoidance
The Doctrine of Avoidance, also known as the principle of constitutional avoidance, dictates that courts should avoid ruling on constitutional questions if a case can be resolved on other legal grounds. This principle is rooted in the idea that constitutional adjudication should be a last resort, preserving the sanctity and stability of the constitution.
Historical Context and Legal Basis
The Doctrine of Avoidance has its roots in the landmark case of Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic (Criminal Appeal 4 of 1979) [1979] KECA 12 (KLR) (Crim) (25 May 1979) (Judgment). It emphasizes the need for precision in drafting constitutional petitions.
The courts have held that a petitioner must set out with reasonable precision the constitutional provisions alleged to be infringed and the manner of the infringement. This principle has been consistently upheld in subsequent cases, forming the bedrock of the Doctrine of Avoidance in Kenya
Key Points of the Case:
Background: Anarita Karimi Njeru was convicted of a criminal offense and sought redress from the High Court, claiming her constitutional rights had been violated. She argued that her trial and subsequent conviction were unconstitutional.
Principle of Precision: The court emphasized that any party seeking a constitutional remedy must draft their petition with a high degree of precision. This means clearly outlining the specific constitutional provisions alleged to be infringed and detailing how they have been infringed.
Court’s Ruling: The High Court, comprising Justices Trevelyan and Hancox, emphasized that anyone seeking constitutional redress must clearly outline:
The specific constitutional provisions alleged to be infringed.
The manner in which these provisions were infringed.
The court held that the petitioner must set out with reasonable precision the constitutional provisions said to be infringed and the manner of the alleged infringement. This requirement ensures that constitutional petitions are not vague and that the court can effectively address the issues raised.
The ruling established that vague or generalized claims are insufficient for constitutional petitions. Petitioners must provide detailed and specific allegations to support their claims
Significance: This case set a benchmark for the drafting of constitutional petitions in Kenya. It has been frequently cited in subsequent cases to ensure that constitutional petitions are clear, specific, and well-structured.
The principle of precision helps in saving judicial time and resources by focusing on the exact issues that need to be addressed.
Conclusion: The Anarita Karimi Njeru case set a precedent for the drafting of constitutional petitions in Kenya. It underscored the importance of clarity and specificity in constitutional litigation, ensuring that petitions are well-founded and not frivolous. This principle has been upheld in numerous subsequent cases and remains a cornerstone of Kenyan constitutional law.
Recent Case Law
The case Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & Others (Civil Appeal 290 of 2012) [2013] KECA 445 (KLR) (Civ) (26 July 2013) involved an appeal against a High Court decision that annulled Mumo Matemu’s appointment as the Chairperson of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC).
Background: Mumo Matemu was appointed by the President as the Chairperson of the EACC, following clearance by the National Assembly. However, the Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance, a non-governmental organization, challenged the constitutionality of his appointment, arguing that the process was flawed and did not meet the integrity standards required by Chapter Six of the Constitution.
High Court Decision: The High Court ruled in favor of the Trusted Society, declaring the appointment unconstitutional. The court found that the appointment process lacked transparency and did not adequately consider Matemu’s suitability for the role.
Issues on Appeal
The main issues addressed by the Court of Appeal were:
Locus Standi: Whether the Trusted Society had the legal standing to file the petition.
Jurisdiction: Whether the High Court had the authority to review and set aside the appointment.
Precision in Pleading: Whether the petition met the required standards of specificity as established in the Anarita Karimi Njeru case.
Separation of Powers: Whether the High Court overstepped its boundaries by interfering with the executive’s appointment powers.
Court of Appeal Decision
The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision, allowing the appeal. The court held that:
The Trusted Society had the locus standi to file the petition as it was a public interest matter.
The High Court had jurisdiction to review the appointment but had misapplied the rationality test.
The petition was sufficiently precise in its pleadings.
The High Court had indeed overstepped its mandate, violating the doctrine of separation of powers by interfering with the executive’s discretion in appointments.
Significance: This case set a precedent in Kenya’s judicial review of executive appointments, emphasizing the need for transparency and adherence to constitutional standards while also respecting the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive
In the case of Consumer Federation of Kenya v Toyota Motors Corporation & 4 others (Petition 455 of 2018) [2022] KEHC 15459 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (18 November 2022) (Judgment), the High Court’s Constitutional Division addressed key constitutional doctrines. The petition was filed by the Consumer Federation of Kenya against Toyota Motors Corporation, Toyota Kenya Limited, Tsusho Capital Limited, Kenya Bureau of Standards, and Arvinder Singh Reel.
Key Points of the Case:
Background: The petition was centered around allegations that the respondents had violated consumer rights by selling defective vehicles and failing to adhere to safety standards.
Constitutional Doctrines: The court reaffirmed the principles established in the Anarita Karimi Njeru case, which requires that constitutional petitions be drafted with a high degree of precision. Petitioners must clearly outline the constitutional provisions alleged to be infringed and how they have been infringed.
Court’s Decision: The court emphasized the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, which suggests that if a dispute can be resolved through another forum without raising a constitutional issue, that alternative forum should be pursued. The court found that the issues raised in the petition could be addressed through other legal avenues rather than as a constitutional matter.
Outcome: The petition was dismissed on the grounds that it did not meet the required
threshold for a constitutional petition and could be resolved through other legal mechanisms. This case highlights the importance of precision in drafting constitutional petitions and the preference for resolving disputes through appropriate legal forums when possible.
3. Odhiambo & another v National Police Service & 3 others; CIC General Insurance Limited & 6 others
In the case of Odhiambo & another v National Police Service & 3 others; CIC General Insurance Limited & 6 others (Interested Parties) (Petition E006 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 719 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (9 February 2023) (Ruling), the High Court addressed significant issues related to the doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies and constitutional avoidance.
Key Points of the Case
Background: The petitioners challenged the tendering process and subsequent award of a medical coverage tender valued at approximately KES 8.6 billion to a consortium of insurance companies, including CIC General Insurance Limited, Britam General Insurance Company (K) Limited, and Old Mutual General Insurance Limited.
Preliminary Objection: The consortium filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection, arguing that the petition was defective as it was filed in the Constitutional and Human Rights Division of the High Court despite the existence of grievance mechanisms under the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015 (PPDA).
Doctrine of Exhaustion: The consortium contended that the petitioners, having obtained the tender documents, were candidates under the PPDA and should have first sought redress through the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (Review Board) as mandated by Section 167 of the PPDA.
The petitioners argued that they could approach the Constitutional Court under Section 174 of the PPDA, claiming the Review Board lacked jurisdiction over constitutional issues.
Court’s Determination: The court upheld the Preliminary Objection, emphasizing the doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies. It noted that the petitioners should have utilized the available statutory grievance mechanisms before approaching the Constitutional Court.
The court also highlighted the principle of constitutional avoidance, suggesting that constitutional issues should be addressed only when absolutely necessary.
Outcome: The petition was dismissed on the grounds that it did not meet the threshold for a constitutional petition and could be resolved through other legal mechanisms. This case underscores the importance of exhausting available legal remedies before seeking constitutional redress and the preference for resolving disputes through appropriate statutory mechanisms.
Implications for Legal Practice
The Doctrine of Avoidance in Kenyan Constitutional Law is has significant implications for legal practitioners in Kenya. Lawyers must carefully consider whether a constitutional petition is the appropriate avenue for their clients’ grievances.
This doctrine encourages the use of alternative legal remedies, promoting judicial efficiency and respecting the hierarchy of legal norms.
Conclusion
The Doctrine of Avoidance in Kenya with Relevant Case Law is a crucial principle in Kenyan constitutional law, guiding courts to resolve disputes on non-constitutional grounds whenever possible. Recent case law, such as the Mumo Matemu Case, Consumer Federation of Kenya v Toyota Motors Corporation and Odhiambo v National Police Service, illustrates the application of this doctrine in practice.
Legal practitioners must be mindful of this principle when drafting constitutional petitions, ensuring that alternative remedies are considered first. By understanding and applying the Doctrine of Avoidance, lawyers can better navigate the complexities of constitutional law in Kenya, promoting judicial efficiency and upholding the integrity of the legal system.
If you have any questions or need expert legal advice on the Constitution, our experienced team is here to help. Don’t navigate the complexities of the legal system alone. Reach out to us now for a consultation and let us provide the guidance and support you need.
