[2012] KEHC 1647 (KLR)
The court found that the judgment delivered on 10th August 2004 was comprehensive, elaborate, and contained all the reasons for the decision. Upon review, the court exercised its discretion to dispense with the giving of any further reasons, as the original judgment sufficed for the purposes of record and effecting...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 1647 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Antony Musila (Mulonzi) Mumangi; Defendant: Emmanuel Karisa Maitha, Minister for Local Government; Defendant: Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 669 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Post Judgment Order Regarding Reasons for Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for further reasons dispensed with; original judgment stands as delivered.
- Judges
- AI Tullu, CC Kipkorir
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Local Government Elections
- 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
Antony Musila (Mulonzi) Mumangi
Plaintiff
Emmanuel Karisa Maitha, Minister for Local Government
Defendant
Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Post Judgment Order Regarding Reasons for Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether further reasons for the judgment delivered on 10th August 2004 were necessary.
- 2 Whether the court should dispense with the giving of additional reasons for the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the judgment delivered on 10th August 2004 was comprehensive, elaborate, and contained all the reasons for the decision. Upon review, the court exercised its discretion to dispense with the giving of any further reasons, as the original judgment sufficed for the purposes of record and effecting the orders. The court also noted that no appeal arose from the judgment, and the orders had been effected. Thus, there was no necessity to provide additional reasons beyond those already contained in the judgment.
Court Disposition
Application for further reasons dispensed with; original judgment stands as delivered.
Orders
- The court dispenses with the giving of any further reasons for the judgment delivered on 10th August 2004.
- The judgment already delivered is to be typed and supplied to counsel for record purposes.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts)
Miscellaneous Application 669 of 2004 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; line-height:115%; font-size:11. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]
ANTONY MUSILA (MULONZI) MUMANGI .........................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
EMMANUEL KARISA MAITHA
MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ....................1ST DEFENDANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL .............................................2ND DEFENDANT
ORDER
I delivered Judgment in this Judicial Review application on 10th August 2004. It involved Local Government elections which was heard on priority basis due to the statutory time-lines within which the election were to be held.
I reserved detailed reasons due to time constraint and statutory time limits.
Upon subsequent careful consideration and upon reading the judgment delivered on 10th August 2004, I am of the view that the said Judgment is wholesome, elaborate and contained all the reasons for the decision. With hindsight there was no need to have any reasons reserved. All the reasons are in the said Judgment. This fact is appreciated by the letter dated 30th November 2006 from the Applicant’s Counsel in which he says:-
“We would be grateful if your Lordship can now proceed to deliver the Judgment with the reasons notwithstandingthat the Judgment delivered on 10th August, 2004 deal substantially with some of the issues raised and canvassed during the hearing .
I therefore do hereby in exercise of the Court’s discretion, review the Court’s Orders and dispense with the giving of any further reasons.
I direct that the Judgment already delivered be typed and supplied to Counsel for record purpose. I believe that the Orders in the Judgment were effected and no appeal arose.
DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI ON THIS 15TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012.
M.K. IBRAHIM
JUDGE
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI ON THIS 2ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2012.
W. KORIR
JUDGE
In the presence of