The petitioners want the court to stop the dissolution of Parliament in accordance with Maraga's call until their petitions are heard and determined.
In a joint petition Senate and the National Assembly want the President to reject the advisory opinion dated September 21 to dissolve Parliament for contravening Article 131(2) as read together with Article 261(7) of the Constitution.
The MPs and Senators are seeking orders to quash Maraga's advisory opinion advising the president to dissolve the Parliament for failure to come up with legislation to implement a two-thirds gender rule.
The legislators further want the high court to declare that the Orders and findings of then Justice John Mativo in Constitutional Petition No 371 of 2016, Centre for Rights and Awareness and 2 Others vs Speaker of National Assembly and six others, only binds the 11th Parliament.
Through lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi the National Assembly and Senate want the court to declare the CJ lacks jurisdiction under Articles 261(5), (6) and (7) of the Constitution to interfere with the law-making powers of the House.
They argue that Maraga's advisory letter has created a wave of anxiety and confusion on the future of the government of Kenya adding that if Parliament were to be dissolved, no current Bills generated by the executive from the State or through private member Bills can pass and or be enacted into law.
Ahmednasir argues that the remaining arms of government (the Executive & Judiciary) cannot be able to expand public monies drawn from the Consolidated Fund without the authority of Parliament as commanded by the constitution under Article 206 of the constitution.
Further, legislators argue that if Parliament is dissolved as per Maraga's advice, the country will be thrown into a constitutional crisis as the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission has no Commissioners under the Act and the national assembly will need to vet the candidates for the appointment to the commission.
"That the state of anarchy that would ensue would be unprecedented, as the other arms of government cannot operate constitutionally without funds and the Executive may operate without being held to account," says the petitioners.
On the other hand Third party alliance in their petition also seeks a determination on whether pursuant to the advisory opinion by the Maraga, Parliament is now unlawful and any business conducted by both National Assembly and Senate is null and void with or without the dissolution by the President.
The party argues that the constitution has not stipulated the timeline within which the president shall dissolve the National Assembly upon advisory of the Chief Justice.
Further, the third party says that there shall be no vacuum upon dissolution of the National Assembly since its powers and functions can be transferred to the Senate for the period within which the National Assembly remains dissolved.
Lawyer Kamotho in his case claims that Article 261(6) of the constitution mandatorily requires the High Court to transmit an order directing Parliament and the Attorney General to take steps to ensure that the required legislation is enacted within the period specified in the order and to report the progress to the Chief Justice.
He adds that Parliament was not a party to the proceedings to any of six petitions and appeals formerly filed in court fermenting the advice formulated by the Chief Justice to dissolve Parliament.
At the same time, the AG has accused the former Chief Justice of not considering the public interest when he issued the Advisory to the President.
The AG also says that if the president proceeds to dissolve parliament as advised by Maraga there will be a constitutional crisis that requires a referendum.
The state legal adviser further argues that there is no clarity as to whether or not such an election shall be a by-election or a general election.