The High Court has thrown out a petition challenging the constitutionality of the 13 members of the National Dialogue Committee (NADCO), citing lack of jurisdiction and prematurity of the matter.
Justice Mugambi ruled that the case was brought before the court prematurely, rendering it a non-existent dispute. He emphasized the principle of ripeness, which requires that a matter must fully materialize into a controversy before it can be subjected to judicial review.
"The doctrine of ripeness applies in this case. This court upholds the preliminary objections and strikes out the petition in its entirety," read Justice Mugambi's ruling.
Did you read this?
The petition had been met with objections from the respondents, represented by lawyer Arnold Oginga, who argued that the court lacked the authority to deliberate on the matter. Oginga maintained that filing a case before the issues have fully crystallized is discouraged under the ripeness doctrine.
By dismissing the petition, the court reaffirmed the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when seeking judicial intervention. The ruling effectively shields NADCO’s membership from constitutional challenges unless substantive controversies arise.
