11. iii. contrary to the court's findings, it did have jurisdiction to grant his leave to review Parliament's conduct and that if the court did not have the jurisdiction, it should not have proceeded to decide the issues on the merits, as alleged. Nairobi HIGH Court Miscellaneous Civil Application No.22 of 2004The Complainant alleges that his rights under Articles 3, 5 and 7 were violated by the Chief Justice not appointing a judge to hear his urgent application to challenge the election of Mr. Francis Kaparo as the Speaker until 6 months prior to the next election, rendering his matter academic and overtaken by events. He further alleges that these same rights were violated when the court allowed Mr. George Oraro to represent the National Assembly and present preliminary objectives despite not being named in the suit. Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Appeal-No.266 of 2008, Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Application No. NAT 261 of 2007 [lJR 161 of 2007] and Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Application No. NAI 320 of 2007 [UR220 of 2007]-The Complainant alleges that the Registrar of the High Court intentionally delay.e d supplying him with a record for HC Application No.22or 2004 for a year in order to delay his appeal in violation of his rights under Article 3 and 5 of the Charter. He further alleges violatiorv Articles 3 and 5 in the delay in the appointment of a bench to hear his appeal by the Chief Justice and the subsequent de-rolling of the app~al after the judges disqualified themselves from hearie,g it. The Complainant contends that Applications 261 Of 2007 and 320 of 2007 were both dismissed without merit. Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Application No. NAI 260 of 2007 [UR160 of 2007]- The Complainant alleges a violation of his rights under ,Article 31 5, and 7 in that the court did not hear this case for over four years, refused to certify it as urgent and ultimately, erroneously as he alleges ruled on the merits instead of only on his application for leave. He further alleges that Judge Bosire who was part of the bench that disqualified themselves from hearing Appeal 266 of 2008 was also on the bench for this case, which he alleges to be contrary to the rules of natural justice. Supreme Court Petition of Appeal No.2 of 2012- The Complainant alleges that his rights under Article 3, 5 and 7 of the Charter were violated when the Supreme Court held in this case that they did not possess the jurisdiction to hear his appeal. He further contends that of 1v. v. ~~EiRET 4 it _wa_s contrary to ~he rules o~ nat~r~l justice to have NJok1 Ndungu preside over this petition when she wast e 0 MPs nominated by the President in the disputed 9th p Jia F?, :~ ~ 4 -