[2024] KEHC 8080 (KLR)
The court found that the ex parte applicants failed to comply with the order to file the substantive judicial review application within the time prescribed by Order 53 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010. The applicants did not attend court to explain their non-compliance, nor did they seek an extension of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 8080 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Derdols Tech Services Ltd t/a Maxxis Nanyuki Energy; Applicant: Derdols Petroleum Limited t/a Maxxis Nanyuki Energy; Respondent: Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review E035 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Abatement/dismissal for Non Compliance
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution/abatement under Order 53 rule 3 Civil Procedure Rules 2010
- Judges
- JM Chigiti
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review Procedure, Abatement of Suit, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Order 53 Civil Procedure Rules
- 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
Derdols Tech Services Ltd t/a Maxxis Nanyuki Energy
Applicant
Derdols Petroleum Limited t/a Maxxis Nanyuki Energy
Applicant
Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Abatement/dismissal for Non Compliance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the ex parte applicants complied with the order to file the substantive suit within the prescribed time.
- 2 Whether the suit should be dismissed for failure to comply with Order 53 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the ex parte applicants failed to comply with the order to file the substantive judicial review application within the time prescribed by Order 53 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010. The applicants did not attend court to explain their non-compliance, nor did they seek an extension of time. As a result, there was no substantive suit before the court, and the matter had abated by operation of law. The court therefore dismissed the suit with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution/abatement under Order 53 rule 3 Civil Procedure Rules 2010
Orders
- The suit is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Derdols Tech Services Ltd t/a Maxxis Nanyuki Energy & another v Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority (Judicial Review E035 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 8080 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (5 July 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 8080 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Judicial Review
Judicial Review E035 of 2024
JM Chigiti, J
July 5, 2024
Between
Derdols Tech Services Ltd t/a Maxxis Nanyuki Energy
1st Applicant
Derdols Petroleum Limited t/a Maxxis Nanyuki Energy
2nd Applicant
and
The Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority
Respondent
Ruling
1. On 16th February 2024, the Ex-parte applicant was granted leave to file the substantive suit within 14 days and also serve the other parties.
2. As at 24th June 2024 when the matter came up for mention for directions, the Ex-parte Applicants had not complied with the said orders.
3. The ex parte applicant was not in court to explain the reason for non-compliance when the matter was called out.
4. The Substantive suit having not been filed within time then there is no suit before the court.
5. Order 53 rule 3 of the civil procedure rules 2010 provides that when leave has been granted to apply for an order of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari, the application shall be made within twenty-one days by notice of motion to the High Court, and there shall, unless the judge granting leave has otherwise directed, be at least eight clear days between the service of the notice of motion and the day named therein for the hearing.
6. The Ex-parte Applicants have never also attended court to explain the delay in filing the substantive suit and as such they may have lost interest in pursuing the suit.
7. The applicant has not filed an application for the enlargement of time to file the substantive suit.
Disposition; 8. It is this court's finding and I so hold that the suit has abated by dint of Order 53 rule 3 of the civil procedure rules 2010. Order;This suit is dismissed with costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 5THDAY OF JULY 2024. …………………………………………J. CHIGITI (SC)JUDGE