8. Mr Kilonzo, appearing for the CCK, opposes the adoption of such a course. He submitted that the action taken by CCK was in consonance with the decision in Petition No. 346 of 2012 where the Court held that CCK is entitled to take regulatory action. Furthermore, that petition in that case did not involve at all any of the frequencies that were the subject of the searches and seizures and that CCK is entitled to proceed with regulatory action in light of the clear declaration of the court regarding the regulatory authority of the CCK. Counsel also submitted that the warrants were issued pursuant to section 118 of the Criminal Procedure Code and if any relief is to be given, it is provided for under the said statute. 9. I have considered the parties arguments and I must warn myself that I am not hearing or making a determination of this case. What is before me is an informal interlocutory application where the petitioner seeks orders necessary to enable the court adjudicate the case fairly and effectively. 10. In order to deal with the issues raised by the petitioner, it is important to put the judgment I delivered on 18th January 2013 in Petition No. 346 of 2012 in perspective as the reason given by the petitioner for impugning the search and seizure warrants is that the action undermines the judgment and proceedings thereon. That judgment dealt with specific letters and notices and at paragraph 63 of the judgment I stated as follows, “I find and hold that the letters dated 6th March 2012, 3rd August 2012, the Notice of Violation dated 3rd August 2012 and the notice issued in the Daily Nation of 17th May 2012 are not in contravention of the petitioners rights protected by Articles 34, 40 and 47 of the Constitution as they are PETITION NO. 59 OF 2013 RULING No. 2 03.02.2013 Page 4