The Supreme Court has finally brought to a closer a long-standing court dispute regarding two administrative units in Garissa county.
The apex court has ruled that Abdisamit and Alago are in Balambala subcounty and not Dadaab as had been alleged by a petitioner.
Garissa resident Abdi Ahmed Abdi had in 2015 challenged the creation of the two units saying they favoured Balambala subcounty. His prayers were upheld by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
But Balambala MP Abdi Omar Shurie moved to the Supreme Court to contest a decision by the lower courts.
The lawmaker argued that the High Court had failed to determine the material question of whether Abdisamit location and Laago and Auliya sublocations were always in Garissa District and in Dujis constituency prior to the delimitation of boundaries which created Balambala and Daadab constituencies or that the same had been created on May 15, 2015, vide the disputed advertisements.
The apex court in its ruling held that the judge at the High Court and the judges at the Court of Appeal misapprehended the suit before them.
Abdi who had been listed as the first respondent in the appeal claimed that by issuing these advertisements, the Interior ministry had ‘purportedly created’ new administrative units namely, Auliya and Laago sublocations without participation from the citizens either directly or through their elected leaders.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court specifically failed to interrogate the proper question before it, which was on the legality of the advertisements for the positions of Chief and Assistant Chiefs for Abdisamit, Laago and Auliya sublocations.
“An advertisement for Administrative positions cannot create constituencies, and the superior courts, by finding to the contrary,were misguided,” reads the Supreme Court judgement delivered by Justice Mohamed Ibrahim, Smokin Wanjala, Issack Lenaola, Njoki Ndung’u and William Ouko.
The apex court also found that the lower courts ought to have limited themselves to addressing the main ground raised in the petition which was; whether the interior ministry, by issuing the two advertisements, had moved the locations in dispute without any justification in law.
“We are therefore in agreement with the appellant’s submission that administrative units are different from electoral units in relation to the manner in which they are created,” the judgement reads.
The Supreme Court ruled that the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated November 20, 2020 and that of the High Court dated October 4, 2017, be set aside.