ghts Development (CEMIRIDE) & 2 others v Attorney General & 2 others; Independent Electoral and BoundariesCommission (Interested determination. 202. What the Court ought to do when confronted with such circumstances is to consider the twin overriding principles of proportionality and equality of arms which are aimed at placing the parties before the Court on equal footing and see where the scales of justice lie considering the fact that it is the business of the court, so far as possible, to secure that any transitional motions before the Court do not render nugatory the ultimate end of justice. The Court, in exercising its discretion, should therefore always opt for the lower rather than the higher risk of injustice. See Suleiman vs. Amboseli Resort Limited [2004] 2 KLR 589. 203. I gather support from the case of East African Cables Limited vs. The Public Procurement Complaints, Review & Appeals Board and Another [2007] eKLR where the Court of Appeal set out principle of public interest; “We think that in the particular circumstances of this case, if we allowed the application the consequences of our orders would harm the greatest number of people. In this instance we would recall that advocates of Utilitarianism, like the famous philosopher John Stuart Mill, contend that in evaluating the rightness or wrongness of an action, we should be primarily concerned with the consequences of our action and if we are comparing the ethical quality of two ways of acting, then we should choose the alternative which tends to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people and produces the most goods. Though we are not dealing with ethical issues, this doctrine in our view is aptly applicable” 204. In this case, the Court cannot ignore the fact that the said Integrated Political Parties Management System has been used by many Kenyans in correcting their political party membership status. It may also have assisted them in choosing their parties by either joining or resigning therefrom. To suspend or reverse the system would mean that the crafty political party officials who enlisted Kenyans as members of their parties without their knowledge would have succeeded in beating the system and the law. That, in my view, would clearly be inimical to the wider public interest. In the circumstances of this case, it is not my intention to throw the baby with the bathtub. 205. Having considered the material placed before me in this petition, the orders that commend themselves to me and which I hereby grant are as follows: 1. A declaration that the State is obligated to observe, respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights. 2. An Order directing the Respondents to put in place measures guaranteeing the full enjoyment of the fundamental rights and freedoms encapsulated under Articles 6(3), 27, 35, 38 and 56 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 with specific attention to minorities and indigenous peoples. 206. I further direct that the costs of this petition be awarded to the Petitioners to be borne by the 2nd Respondent. 207. Judgement accordingly. Judgement read, signed and delivered in open Court at Machakos this 4th day of April, 2022 G V ODUNGA JUDGE Delivered the presence of: Ms Muthoni Nyuguto for the Petitioners Ms Mutindi for the 1st and 3rd Respondents Mr Edwin Mukele for the 2nd Respondent http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 28/29