[2025] KEHC 5524 (KLR)
The court found that although the heading of the application referenced leave to commence judicial review proceedings, the body of the application did not contain a clear prayer for leave to file the substantive motion. The application was lengthy, jumbled, and incomprehensible, failing to disclose a cause of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 5524 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Toluwalase Amondi; Respondent: Airtel Networks Kenya Limited; Respondent: Erick Njuri, Regulatory Manager, Airtel Networks Kenya; Respondent: Director General, Communications Authority of Kenya; Respondent: Data Protection Commissioner; Respondent: Sharon Kinya Kithinji; Interested Party: Central Bank of Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review Application E101 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Leave Application
- Outcome
- application struck out
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review Procedure, Leave to Apply, Certiorari, Mandamus, Prohibition
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Toluwalase Amondi
Applicant
Airtel Networks Kenya Limited
Respondent
Erick Njuri, Regulatory Manager, Airtel Networks Kenya
Respondent
Director General, Communications Authority of Kenya
Respondent
Data Protection Commissioner
Respondent
Sharon Kinya Kithinji
Respondent
Central Bank of Kenya
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Leave Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's motion properly sought leave to commence judicial review proceedings.
- 2 Whether the application disclosed a cause of action sufficient to warrant leave.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the heading of the application referenced leave to commence judicial review proceedings, the body of the application did not contain a clear prayer for leave to file the substantive motion. The application was lengthy, jumbled, and incomprehensible, failing to disclose a cause of action. As a result, the application was not properly before the court and could not be entertained. The court therefore struck out the application for want of clarity and failure to disclose a cause of action.
Court Disposition
application struck out
Orders
- The application is struck out.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
Amondi v Airtel Networks Kenya Limited & 4 others; Central Bank of Kenya (Interested Party) (Judicial Review Application E101 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 5524 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (30 April 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 5524 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Judicial Review
Judicial Review Application E101 of 2025
RE Aburili, J
April 30, 2025
Between
Toluwalase Amondi
Applicant
and
Airtel Networks Kenya Limited
1st Respondent
Erick Njuri, Regulatory Manager, Airtel Networks Kenya
2nd Respondent
Director General, Communications Authority of Kenya
3rd Respondent
Data Protection Commissioner
4th Respondent
Sharon Kinya Kithinji
5th Respondent
and
Central Bank of Kenya
Interested Party
Ruling
1. I have perused the documents filed by the applicant in support of the Notice of Motion application dated 24/4/2025.
2. The heading of the application is for leave to commence Judicial Review proceedings for summons, certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and compensation.
3. However, in the body of the application, on the prayers as framed, there is no prayer for leave to issue to allow the applicant file the substantive motion.
4. I find the application which is lengthy and jumbled up not capable of being comprehended and does not disclose the cause of action.
5. It is hereby struck out with no orders as to costs and the file is closed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 30THDAY OF APRIL, 2025R.E. ABURILIJUDGE