Safaricom wants the High Court to reject a petition filed by Geonet Communications, which is questioning qualifications of the Communications and Media Tribunal chair.
But the CA has joined Geonet in asking the High Court to reject Safaricom’s argument that the case is premature since the Tribunal is yet to render any decision and that the Judicial Service Commission, which appointed the chairman, was not enjoined.
The Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) has differed with Safaricom over the High Court’s jurisdiction to hear a case seeking to block a tribunal chairperson from hearing an appeal lodged by Safaricom against a Sh449 million fine imposed on the telco.
Safaricom #ticker:SCOM wants the High Court to reject a petition filed by Geonet Communications, which is questioning qualifications of the Communications and Media Tribunal chair.
But the CA has joined Geonet in asking the High Court to reject Safaricom’s argument that the case is premature since the Tribunal is yet to render any decision and that the Judicial Service Commission, which appointed the chairman, was not enjoined.
“That the judicial review application herein is not seeking to challenge the process of nomination of the respondent. As such, the joinder of the judicial service commission to the proceedings is not necessary, neither is its non-joinder fatal to the proceedings before this honourable court,” says the CA in opposition to the objection filed by Safaricom.
The regulator on August 1 fined Safaricom Sh449 million after it found it culpable of blocking calls from smaller telecommunication firms, Elige Communications Ltd and Geonet Communications. The regulator gave Safaricom 30 days to pay the fine but the tribunal suspended the directive following an appeal by the telco.
Safaricom filed appeal at the Tribunal on August 20 arguing it was not given time to be heard among other grounds, noting that the CA gave a verdict before the 21 days it was granted to respond had lapsed.
The sector regulator however opposed the Tribunal’s ruling arguing that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case since its chairperson, Mr Oketch, lacked requisite qualifications to be appointed to the position, a position that Safaricom opposed on grounds that it had not been properly raised.
The CA argued that Mr Oketch should step down from hearing the case since he has eight years’ experience having served as an advocate for three years and as a magistrate for five years and yet the minimum qualification is 10 years.
The regulator noted that if that happens the tribunal would have no quorum to hear the case, while orders suspending the fine would lapse too.
The Tribunal rejected the opposition to its jurisdiction to hear the Safaricom appeal, prompting Geonet to move to the High Court.
PAYE Tax Calculator
Note: The results are not exact but very close to the actual.
