Communications Commission of Kenya & 4 others v Royal Media Services Limited & 7 others [2014] eKLR iii. The 2nd & 4th Appellants and the 7th Respondent [12] Learned counsel, Mr. Kilonzo, holding brief for learned counsel, Mr. Njoroge for the 2nd appellant, learned counsel, Mr. Saende for the 4th appellant, and learned counsel, Mr. Monari for the 7th respondent contested the application, and argued that the application as presented, contemplated two possible options: first, joinder of the applicant as an interested party; and secondly, corresponding leave to file a cross-petition to the appeal. Counsel urged that the primary purpose of the intended crosspetition was the dismissal of the appeal, and that in the circumstances, the proposed role of the applicant as intervener was in the nature of a sham; and appellant was a stranger to the proceedings. Learned counsel further submitted that, Rule 38 of the Supreme Court Rules only allows a respondent to file a cross-appeal, but not a non-party to the proceedings. [13] In conclusion, learned counsel urged the Court to grant costs, in compensation for loss of time occasioned by the instant application. iv. The 1st 2nd and 3rd Respondents [14] The application was contested by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents in their grounds of opposition dated 21st July, 2014, in which they perceived the application as an abuse of Court process, in the following particulars: i. there was no basis to allow the joinder of the applicant pursuant to rule 25 of the supreme court rules, 2012; ii. rule 54(1)(a) and (2) makes provision for parties who wish to be enjoined as amicus curiae and who must establish expertise, impartiality and independence, none of which elements had been established by the applicant; iii. the applicant was not involved in the broadcasting industry, and had not demonstrated an identifiable stake or legal interest in the proceedings before the Court; iv. the proceedings in High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 51 of 2010, being relied upon by the applicant, to the present appeal; v. the applicant had not demonstrated the value it would add to the present proceedings, in light of the weighty constitutional issues raised in the appeal; vi. while the applicant was aware of the proceedings before the High Court and the Court of Appeal, it never made any application to be enjoined in those proceedings, and the present application would only prejudice the expeditious hearing and determination of the appeal. [15] Learned counsel for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents, Mr. Kimani submitted that the application did not present an ordinary case for joinder, but one that amounted to an interference with the setting for an appeal before this Court. Counsel submitted that the applicant had provided information confirming that it was indeed a party in a concluded cause before the High Court in Nakuru (Misc. Civil Application No. (JR.) 51 of 2010), and in that case, the High Court dismissed the claim, though it agreed obiter, with the applicant that Regulation 46(3) had been made contrary to the intent and objects of the Act, and so was inconsistent with the mandate of CCK. [16] Counsel submitted that the applicant’s true intentions were to present a fresh cause of action at this advanced stage, and that the application ought to be dismissed with costs. http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 4/11