Communications Commission of Kenya & 4 others v Royal Media Services Limited & 7 others [2014] eKLR Ct. Petition No 4 of 2014, the Court (at paragraph 84) thus held: “The affidavit sought to introduce the issue of rigging, which had been canvassed neither at the High Court, nor at the Court of Appeal. This Court has on previous occasions pronounced itself on the nature of an appeal, and the extent of our appellate jurisdiction. In Erad Suppliers & General Contractors Limited v. National Cereals & Produce Board, SC Petition No. 5 of 2012, this Court held that: ‘In our opinion, a question involving the interpretation or application of the Constitution that is integrally linked to the main cause in a superior Court of first instance is to be resolved at that forum in the first place, before an appeal can be entertained. Where, before such a Court, parties raise a question of interpretation or application of the Constitution that has only a limited bearing on the merits of the main cause, the Court may decline to determine the secondary claim if in its opinion, this will distract its judicious determination of the main cause; and a collateral cause thus declined, generally falls outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court’. We are of the opinion that the issue of rigging was a new issue, which the 1st respondent sought to introduce for the first time at the Supreme Court, and therefore, it cannot be entertained.” [39] On the basis of those principles, we cannot allow the applicant to raise the issues intended in the cross-petition. The applicant’s recourse may be found in applying to be enjoined in similar cases pending before the High Court, and at the discretion of that Court. Alternatively, the applicant may opt to institute fresh proceedings at the appropriate forum. [40] It is clear that there is a similarity between the issues raised by the applicant, and those arising in Constitutional Petition No. 244 of 2011 at the High Court. Determining those issues at this final stage, in view of the terms of Article 163(7) of the Constitution, would encroach on the independent mandate of the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction, a prospect not to be entertained by this Court. Where litigation is properly commenced, the High Court has the professional aptitude to deal with the issues before it, and it is our obligation to sustain such constitutional mandate. [41] Learned counsel Mr. Kilonzo for the 1st appellant, prayed for a dismissal of the application, and for an Order for costs, against the applicants. Counsel was of the view that the time expended in addressing the application could have been used in preparing the ground for the appeal. Other learned counsel also sought the dismissal of the application, and an Order for costs in their favour. [42] Section 21(2) of the Supreme Court Act provides that: “In any proceedings, the Supreme Court may make any ancillary or interlocutory orders, including any orders as to costs that it thinks fit to award”. [43] This Court had the opportunity of pronouncing itself on the issue of costs in Mike Wanjohi v. Steven Kariuki & Others, Sup. Ct. Petition No. 2A of 2014 by affirming its holding in Jasbir Singh Rai & 3 Others v. Tarlochan Singh & 4 Others, Sup Ct. Petition 4 of 2012; [2013] eKLR (at paragraphs 120 and 121): “It emerges that the award of costs would normally be guided by the principle that ‘costs follow the event’: the effect being that the party who calls forth the event by instituting suit, will bear the costs if the suit fails; but if this party shows legitimate occasion, by successful suit, then the defendant or respondent will bear the costs. However, the vital factor in setting the preference, is http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 9/11