The High Court has dismissed a petition questioning the constitutionality of the 13-member National Dialogue Committee (NADCO), ruling that the case lacked legal merit.
Justice Mugambi, delivering the judgment, stated that the court’s jurisdiction had been improperly invoked to address what he termed a “non-existent dispute.”
The court emphasized that the petition was premature, invoking the legal doctrine of ripeness.
“The doctrine of ripeness applies in this case. This court upholds the preliminary objections and strikes out the petition in its entirety,” Justice Mugambi ruled.
The petition had sought to challenge the legal standing of NADCO’s membership.
However, lawyer Arnold Oginga, representing the respondents, argued that the court could not entertain the matter as it had yet to evolve into an actual controversy.
Oginga stressed that the doctrine of ripeness bars courts from considering issues before they fully crystallize.
Justice Mugambi agreed with the respondents, noting that the judiciary must refrain from engaging in hypothetical or premature disputes.
The ruling effectively closes the door on legal challenges to NADCO’s composition—at least for now—unless new grounds arise that meet the threshold for a live controversy.
Justice Mugambi, delivering the judgment, stated that the court’s jurisdiction had been improperly invoked to address what he termed a “non-existent dispute.”
The court emphasized that the petition was premature, invoking the legal doctrine of ripeness.
“The doctrine of ripeness applies in this case. This court upholds the preliminary objections and strikes out the petition in its entirety,” Justice Mugambi ruled.
The petition had sought to challenge the legal standing of NADCO’s membership.
However, lawyer Arnold Oginga, representing the respondents, argued that the court could not entertain the matter as it had yet to evolve into an actual controversy.
Oginga stressed that the doctrine of ripeness bars courts from considering issues before they fully crystallize.
Justice Mugambi agreed with the respondents, noting that the judiciary must refrain from engaging in hypothetical or premature disputes.
The ruling effectively closes the door on legal challenges to NADCO’s composition—at least for now—unless new grounds arise that meet the threshold for a live controversy.
