Kenya court orders draw criticism

If the courts had their way, the Kenyatta International Conference Centre would still be in the hands of the Kenya National African Union (Kanu), and the government would be holding its conferences at hotels and other resorts.

In January 2003, in one of his first acts in office, President Kibaki issued an executive order stripping Kanu of ownership of KICC and ordered that it revert to public ownership.

At the time, the 28-storey building was a pale shadow of the gleaming international conference centre that was the envy of the region when it was opened in 1973.

Offices within it were used by various well-connected individuals to run businesses like as photocopying kiosks and real estate agencies.

The building was in a state of disrepair, and some individuals had even converted some rooms in the basement into living quarters.

Possession of taxpayers

President Kibaki, who was minister for Commerce and Industry at the time the State borrowed nearly £4 million to construct the building, ordered that the high-rise tower return to the possession of taxpayers whose money paid for it.

He said that the decision in 1989 to offer the building to Kanu as a “gift” was illegal.

The fact that some Kanu officials took a Sh300 million loan with the KICC as collateral, the President contended, represented an act of robbery against taxpayers.

Kanu was furious. Its lawyer at the time, Mr Mutula Kilonzo, denounced the action.

“The Narc government is making a serious goof by trying to repossess a building which is neither standing on water or sand but has a title deed issued by the Registrar of Titles,” he said.

“Whether the title deed was fraudulently obtained or not is not the issue since in every dispute there are always two or more protagonists.”

The courts agreed with Mr Kilonzo and slapped an injunction against the government. In stepped Attorney-General Amos Wako.

He outsmarted Kanu lawyers with a creative interpretation of the ruling that ordered that the status quo (Kanu ownership of KICC) be maintained until the case had been heard and determined.

According to Mr Wako, the status quo implied that things should remain as they were when the order was issued.

And since Kanu had already been kicked out, Mr Wako said, the case would proceed while the party remained out of the building.

In recent weeks, the use of injunctions to stop the State and individuals from implementing various projects has come into focus as the courts have issued a series of stay orders on various matters.

The most prominent of these was one that halted the vetting of judges and magistrates, a process seen as key to restoring the tainted image of the Judiciary.