for determination in the Amended Chamber Summons dated 4th February 2013 are in the nature of mandatory orders whose effect would be to restore to the petitioners the premises and the seized equipment. 6. The petitioner now seeks to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165(6) and (7) which provides as follows; (6) The High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts and over any person, body or authority exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function, but not over a superior court. (7) For the purposes of clause (6), the High Court may call for the record of any proceedings before any subordinate court or person, body or authority referred to in clause (6), and may make any order or give any direction it considers appropriate to ensure the fair administration of justice. 7. According to the submission by Dr Kamau Kuria, S.C., counsel for the petitioner, the evidence before the court when taken as a whole shows that CCK was intent on undermining the judgment in Petition No. 346 of 2012 and it is appropriate for the court to call for the records of the subordinate court in order to conduct an inquiry into the matter so as to prevent an abuse of the court process. The petitioner’s case is that this conduct is evidenced by the fact that parallel enforcement proceedings were began when Petition No. 346 of 2012 was on-going and that the action was taken during the weekend when the petitioner has no opportunity to apply for conservatory orders. Counsel submitted that the conduct by CCK constitutes an abuse of the court process and amounts to contempt of court and the court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to investigate the matter. PETITION NO. 59 OF 2013 RULING No. 2 03.02.2013 Page 3