National Assembly who declared the result of the impugned election; the Electoral Commission of Kenya which conducted the impugned election, The Attorney General; and the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission which was later dropped from the suit. On 13 January 2004 the matter was certified for urgent hearing during court vacation and referred to the Chief Justice for further directions. The Complainant avers that the Chief Justice deliberately stalled the hearing of the matter by not giving the necessary directions until 6 June 2007 when the matter was scheduled for hearing on 27 June 2007 before a panel of three judges. The C<?mplainant asserts that the delay was a deliberate ploy to allow the elected Speaker to continue serving until almost the end of the term when the matter was set for hearing in 2007. He states that some of his prayers had since been overtaken by events with effluxion of time. 6. Further, when the matter came for hearing on 27 Juµe 2007, a lawyer from private practice sought to represent Parliam~nt ·which, .as an institution, was not a respondent to the matter. An in-house advocate of the Electoral Commission who had signed and filed papers on behalf of :and as an officer of the Electoral Commission also sought to participate in,,the hearing. A third advocate who was an employee of the Respondent, State also sdught to represent the Attorney General. The Complainant challerigecl. the participation of the lawyer from private practice as r->arliament was not a party. He also challenged the participation :of the advocate for the Electo:ral Commission because the papers filed on behalf of the Electoral Commission had not been drawn in the name of the Electoral Cmn_mission. Further, he , challenged the State advocate on the ground that she did not produce evidence of her appointment as advocate for the Attorney General in the suit. ' The Court dismissed his challenge and permitted the advocate from private practice to raise preliminary objections to the originating summons. The other advocates supported the preliminary objections. The court adjourned hearing of the preliminary objections to 9 October 2007 when the Complainant was supposed to respond to the preliminary objections. ;/ 7. On 8 October 2007, a day before the next hearing date, the Complainant made a chamber application for the court to review its decision granting audience to the lawyers who he insisted were not properly on record as representing the respondents. He also alleged that some evidence which would have supported his challenge but was not available on 27 October 2007 had since come to light. When the matter came up for the scheduled hearing on 9 October 2007, the Complainant's chamber application was the first issue to be resolved. The concerned lawyers for the respondents objected to the chamber applic~ ~ ~ - - .: : abuse of court process as the court had already granted them righ~(tjt~~uJY '~f~~11<1/·"~~ on 27 June 2007 on be.half of the respective respondents to the matt¢f . T ~ n®R; · ~ 1 ·. . \i\. ~\ ::! n (. ' ~ 1· W,: j age ·1·2 L\4 rrl J E:.,...f) c,," 04 ~.-(;!-0 </~ '? Q ~~~~;;~_;;;~