Luco Njagi & 21 others v Ministry of Health & 2 others [2015] eKLR 88. It would be to issue orders in vain, in my view, for the court to attempt to tell the state that it must have a certain number of dialysis machines at a certain period in time or that it must ensure access to these machines in private institution when the court cannot determine the availability of resources, or what impact the diversion of resources to meet the petitioners’ individual demands would have. I say this while appreciating the dearth of information supplied by the parties, particularly the 1st respondent, in relation to its policies and budgets for health vis a vis other sectors, but bearing in mind also the limitations of the court in making a determination on what is appropriate expenditure in the various sectors for which the state is responsible. 89. The petitioners urged the court to be guided by the decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the case of Treatment Action Campaign (supra). However, in that case, while the court did order the removal of restrictions on the use of Nevirapine to avoid mother to child transmission of HIV in public hospitals and clinics which were not research sites, it did recognize the limitations of the court in such matters. It observed at paragraph 35 and 36 of the judgment that all that can be expected of the state in matters relating to access to socio-economic rights such as the right to health is that it acts reasonably to provide access to the socioeconomic rights guaranteed under section 26 and 27 of the South African Constitution. It further stated, at paragraph 37 and 38, that: [37] It should be borne in mind that in dealing with such matters the courts are not institutionally equipped to make the wide-ranging factual and political enquiries necessary for determining what the minimum-core standards called for by the first and second amici should be, nor for deciding how public revenues should most effectively be spent. There are many pressing demands on the public purse. As was said in Soobramoney: “The State has to manage its limited resources in order to address all these claims. There will be times when this requires it to adopt a holistic approach to the larger needs of society rather than to focus on the specific needs of particular individuals within society.” [38] Courts are ill-suited to adjudicate upon issues where court orders could have multiple social and economic consequences for the community. The Constitution contemplates rather a restrained and focused role for the courts, namely, to require the state to take measures to meet its constitutional obligations and to subject the reasonableness of these measures to evaluation. Such determinations of reasonableness may in fact have budgetary implications, but are not in themselves directed at rearranging budgets. In this way the judicial, legislative and executive functions achieve appropriate constitutional balance.” 90. In the present case, I am satisfied, on the material before me, that the measures taken by the respondents to ensure access to haemodialysis by the petitioner are reasonable in the circumstances. I am not therefore able to issue the orders that the petitioners seek. Their petition is therefore dismissed, but with no order as to costs. Dated Delivered and signed at Nairobi this 28th day of January 2015 MUMBI NGUGI JUDGE Mr. Tanui instructed by the firm of Manyonge Wanyama & Associates Advocates for the 1st -21st petitioners http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 17/18