[2025] KEELC 3854 (KLR)
The court held that the miscellaneous application was improperly before it because there was already an existing petition between the same parties and over the same subject matter, and the orders sought to be reviewed were issued in that petition. The applicant's explanation for not filing the application within the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELC 3854 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: City Manager, County Government of Kenya; Applicant: City Board; Applicant: County Executive Committee Member for Trade County Government Of Kisumu; Applicant: County Government of Kisumu; Respondent: Hamilton Omondi Manyala; Respondent: Esther Akinyi Agola; Respondent: Rashid Otieno Bongo; Respondent: Christine Akoth Bongo
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection upheld; miscellaneous application struck out
- Judges
- E Asati
- Legal Topics
- Abuse of Court Process, Review of Court Orders, Procedural Irregularity
- 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
City Manager, County Government of Kenya
Applicant
City Board
Applicant
County Executive Committee Member for Trade County Government Of Kisumu
Applicant
County Government of Kisumu
Applicant
Hamilton Omondi Manyala
Respondent
Esther Akinyi Agola
Respondent
Rashid Otieno Bongo
Respondent
Christine Akoth Bongo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a miscellaneous application can be used to review or set aside substantive orders issued in a different cause.
- 2 Whether the application amounts to an abuse of court process.
- 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the application in the present form.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the miscellaneous application was improperly before it because there was already an existing petition between the same parties and over the same subject matter, and the orders sought to be reviewed were issued in that petition. The applicant's explanation for not filing the application within the existing petition was found unsatisfactory, as instituting a new matter would require more time than filing an application in the existing one. The court emphasized that parties must seek relief within established rules and procedures to avoid chaos and confusion in the administration of justice. Entertaining the application in its current form would be unprocedural and an...
Court Disposition
preliminary objection upheld; miscellaneous application struck out
Orders
- The preliminary objection is upheld.
- The miscellaneous application is struck out.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
City Manager, County Government of Kenya & 3 others v Manyala & 3 others (Suing as Members of Kibuye Traders) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 3854 (KLR) (15 May 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 3854 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2025
E Asati, J
May 15, 2025
Between
City Manager, County Government of Kenya
1st Applicant
City Board
2nd Applicant
County Executive Committee Member for Trade County Government Of Kisumu
3rd Applicant
County Government of Kisumu
4th Applicant
and
Hamilton Omondi Manyala
1st Respondent
Esther Akinyi Agola
2nd Respondent
Rashid Otieno Bongo
3rd Respondent
Christine Akoth Bongo
4th Respondent
Suing as Members of Kibuye Traders
Ruling
1. Vide Notice of Motion dated 4th May 2025 the applicant sought for an order to set aside, vary and/or discharge conservatory orders issued on 2/5/2025 in Kisumu Environment and Land Court Petition E002 of 2025 and for the court to make an order closing Kibuye Market.
2. In response to the application, the Respondents filed, inter alia, a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 8th May 2025 seeking that the application be struck out on grounds that; -a.The application is bad in law as the applicant seeks the court to sit on appeal on its orders which were made after a proper hearing was conducted.b.That substantive orders cannot be reviewed through a Miscellaneous application.c.That the application is an abuse of the process of the court.d.That the application has been brought to derail Petition ELC 02 of 2025.
3. By Consent of the parties, the Preliminary objection was given precedence and argued orally on 9/5/2025.
4. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that there is already a petition existing in which the court granted the orders sought to be reviewed. That applications have to be brought through the prescribed rules and that established rules and procedures should be followed. That the court gave orders on 2/5/2025 in the presence of Counsel for the applicant and that it is an abuse of court process for the applicant to file another matter through different Counsel. That the matter before court is for appeal and not for review. That article 159 of the Constitution is not a remedy for applications which are unfounded.
5. On behalf for the applicant Counsel relied on the provisions of article 159(2) of the Constitution and submitted that the application was brought to safeguard the Respondents. That time was not on the applicants’ side so the applicants decided to file the Miscellaneous application. Counsel relied on the case of Raila Odinga -vs- IEBC.
6. I have considered the Preliminary Objection and the submissions made by both parties. There is no dispute that Petition No ELC Pet No. E002 of 2025 between the same parties and over the same subject matter exists and that the orders sought to be reviewed herein were issued in the petition.
7. The applicant’s explanation for not filing the present application in the already existing Petition was that time was not on applicant’s side. This explanation is however not satisfactory. In my view more time would be required to institute a new matter than to file an application in an already existing matter. While the court appreciates the gravity of the subject matter of the application, it is paramount that parties approaching the court for relief must do so within the established rules and procedures. To operate otherwise would be to invite chaos and confusion in the administration of justice. It will be totally un-procedural for this court to entertain in this cause an application seeking to review orders issued in a different cause.
8. I find that the Miscellaneous Application is improperly before court.
9. I hereby uphold the preliminary objection and strike out the Miscellaneous Application. No order as to costs.Orders accordingly.
RULING, DATED AND SIGNED AT VIHIGA AND READ VIRTUALLY THIS 15TH DAY OF MAY 2025 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE APPLICATION.E. ASATI,JUDGE.In the presence of:Ajevi Court Assistant.M/s Atieno for the applicants.Mwamu for the Respondents.