[2006] KEHC 2908 (KLR)
The court found that although it was doubtful whether the District Commissioner was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, it was in the interests of justice to allow the applicants to ventilate their grievances through a substantive motion. Accordingly, leave was granted to the applicants to file for judicial review...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 2908 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Josphat Kariuki; Applicant: Simon Ndungu; Applicant: Peter Gichangi; Respondent: The District Commissioner, Nakuru District
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 123 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Leave for Judicial Review
- Outcome
- Leave granted to file for judicial review; leave to operate as stay.
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Prohibition Orders, Quasi Judicial Functions, Administrative Action, Land Disputes
- 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
Josphat Kariuki
Applicant
Simon Ndungu
Applicant
Peter Gichangi
Applicant
The District Commissioner, Nakuru District
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Leave for Judicial Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the District Commissioner was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity to warrant judicial review intervention.
- 2 Whether leave should be granted to the applicants to seek orders of prohibition against the respondent.
- 3 Whether the authorities cited by the applicants are applicable to the facts of this case.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although it was doubtful whether the District Commissioner was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, it was in the interests of justice to allow the applicants to ventilate their grievances through a substantive motion. Accordingly, leave was granted to the applicants to file for judicial review orders as prayed, and the leave was ordered to operate as a stay, restraining the respondent from dealing with the suit parcel of land pending the hearing and determination of the substantive motion. The court emphasized that the merits of the application would be determined at the substantive hearing.
Court Disposition
Leave granted to file for judicial review; leave to operate as stay.
Orders
- Applicants granted leave to file for orders of judicial review as prayed in paragraph (a) of the application.
- Leave to operate as a stay restraining the respondent from dealing with the suit parcel of land pending hearing and determination of the substantive motion.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
12 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
Misc Appli 123 Of 2006
THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, NAKURU DISTRICT……………….…RESPONDENT
VERSUS
JOSPHAT KARIUKI
SIMON NDUNGU
PETER GICHANGI ..……………....................................………………….APPLICANTS
RULING
I have perused the application for leave filed by the applicants in this case. The applicants are seeking judicial review orders of prohibition against the respondent, the District Commissioner, Nakuru. Having examined the complaint made against the District Commissioner, I am not persuaded that the District Commissioner was or is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity to enable this court to intervene. I have read the authorities supplied to this court by the applicants which give instances under which the court can prohibit administrative officials from taking certain actions. It is doubtful if the said authorities are applicable in the circumstances of this case. However so that the issues raised by the applicant may be ventilated, whatever its merits, I hereby grant the applicants leave to file for orders of judicial review as prayed in paragraph (a) of the application. The said leave shall operate to stay the respondent from dealing with the suit parcel of land pending the hearing and determination of the substantive motion. The applicants shall file a substantive motion within twenty one (21) days of today’s date. The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the substantive motion.
DATED at NAKURU this 20th day of March 2006.
L. KIMARU
JUDGE