The Supreme Court has rejected an application from the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ) that sought to redefine its authority in relation to other constitutional bodies and county governments.
In 2025, the CAJ petitioned the apex court to overturn a 2021 ruling that curtailed its enforcement powers.
The commission asserted that the earlier court decision in the Vision 2030 Delivery Board case had weakened its ability to compel compliance from state organs, including county governments and independent commissions.
In that prior ruling, the Supreme Court determined that the Ombudsman’s recommendations are discretionary rather than binding, highlighting that the commission’s primary enforcement mechanism involves reporting to Parliament.
The CAJ argued that this interpretation hindered its effectiveness in addressing non-compliance.
To support its position, the commission referenced instances where its authority had reportedly been disregarded.
Notably, it cited a dispute with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), where commissioners allegedly overlooked summonses issued by the Ombudsman concerning complaints against judicial officers, claiming the summonses were unlawful and unconstitutional.
The commission also highlighted ongoing grievances against county governments, including unpaid work injury benefits in Mombasa and complaints about noise pollution in Kisumu.
It maintained that the binding precedent limited its intervention and enforcement capabilities.
However, the Supreme Court found the CAJ’s arguments unconvincing.
In a determination released on Friday, the judges pointed out that while the court can provide advisory opinions, it must proceed with caution to prevent misuse by litigants dissatisfied with past rulings.
The court emphasized, “A litigant cannot urge the court to depart from its previous decision simply because he disagrees with it, or that the decision militates against his case.”
The bench concluded that the CAJ failed to demonstrate any substantive legal dispute or challenges arising from the exercise of its powers that would justify judicial intervention.
The judgment stated, “There was no indication of any challenges or disputes arising from the applicant’s exercise of its powers or functions, nor had the applicant demonstrated difficulties in requiring the production of any documents or records relevant to any investigation by the commission over county government officers, state officers, or constitutional commissioners.”
Regarding the principle of precedent, the judges remarked, “While it is not in doubt that the Supreme Court may depart from its previous decisions under Article 163 (7) of the Constitution, such departure must be premised upon a clear and well-reasoned justification.”
This ruling preserves the existing legal framework governing the Ombudsman’s authority, which allows for extensive investigative reach but limits its power to compel compliance from other state entities.
The court instructed that each party shall bear its own costs.
