in the nature of notices that afford RMS to show cause why regulatory action should not be taken against it. As a consequence, I reject prayers (d), and (e) of the amended petition.” 11. The matter did not deal with any other notices or other frequencies and cannot be construed to restrain CCK from taking regulatory action in any other case concerning frequencies that were not the subject of the petition. A similar argument was also dealt with at paragraphs 46 and 47 of the judgment which dealt with the effect of other cases where conservatory orders were in force; Petition No. 244 of 2011, Media Owners Association v Attorney General, the Ministry of Information and Communication and the Communication Commission of Kenya and Nairobi HC Misc. Appl. No. JR 284 of 2011 Magic Radio Ltd v The Communications Commission of Kenya. 12. The petitioner is right and indeed entitled to bring this case against CCK to impugn its action but if the argument is that the warrants of search and seizure are connected to the case I determined, then I must make it very clear that the proposed inquiry or course suggested by the petitioner cannot proceed on that basis as the licences and frequencies that were not subject to the previous proceedings. 13. Both parties concede that I have wide jurisdiction under Article 165. Indeed, the hallmark of our jurisprudence particularly as it pertains to enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms is that the court must be able to fashion appropriate reliefs that deal with the exigencies of each case. PETITION NO. 59 OF 2013 RULING No. 2 03.02.2013 Page 5