further buttressed by the fact that despite basing his entire Complaint on the alleged disenfranchisement of Nominated MPs, he himself was not one and as such did not have a reql and substantial interest in that. 68. The Commission notes that the Complainant also alleges that his application to be speaker was blocked on the 18 th of February 2003, the date he considered to be the legitimate first session of Parliament. It must be understood that there was no election for the Speaker of Parliament on the 18 th of February 2003. The Complainant unilaterally appointed this to be the date he would have liked the Speaker to be elected, this is of no legal consequence. 69. What remains to be determined is whether the Complainant's argument on the exclusion of the Nominated MPs obtains, despite having no apparent interest and despite participating in the proceedings,. The Commission notes that the question of the legality of the January 9 Parlia1ftentary pniceedings was decided in the domestic Courts of the Respondent St~te,8 whi~h, decisions the Commission find to be plausible. In Miscellaneous Application No.554 of 2003, the High Court in Nairobi heard the Complainanfs Application9 fo:t; leave to judicially review the business conducted by th~ parliament on the ,9th ofJanuary 2003. The Complainant also prayed for declar1;1-tions for the issue of orders of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition. 10 The Court while deciding cm the plausibility of the application for leave, clarified the· meaning of the term "prorogue" 1n its obiter dictum, a term whose meaning the Applicant's contention relies majorly on. The Court mentioned that Prorogation did not mean dissolution but rather adjournment. 11 70. The Commission notes that the effect of this decision is to clarify one of the confusions regarding the legaLity of}he 9th of January proceedings, specifically whether Legal Notice 112 proroguing Parliament had the effect of nullifying the proceedings' as argued 13 by the Complainant. The Complainant had argued that Legal Notice 1. The Commission considers this reasoning to be succinct. Prorogation as the Court pronounced does not dissolve Parliament, it simply adjourns it. 71. The Applicant then subsequently filed another petition to the High Court under a Constitutional reference in Miscellaneous Application 22 of 2004, seeking