[2005] KEHC 2341 (KLR)

[2005] KEHC 2341 (KLR)

The court found that the substantive application for judicial review was filed within two days of leave being granted, as evidenced by Civil Misc. Application No. 37 of 2005. Therefore, the basis for the Notice of Motion to set aside the leave—namely, that the application had not been filed—was factually incorrect....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] KEHC 2341 (KLR)
Parties
Respondent: Edward Mwangi Wachira; Applicant: John Kiritu Mwenje; Applicant: Stephen Chege Munyiri; Applicant: James Kamau Muriuki
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 28 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Set Aside Leave for Judicial Review
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review Procedure, Leave to Apply, Setting Aside Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Judicial Review Procedure Leave to Apply Setting Aside Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Mwangi Wachira

Respondent

John Kiritu Mwenje

Applicant

Stephen Chege Munyiri

Applicant

James Kamau Muriuki

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Set Aside Leave for Judicial Review

  1. 1 Whether the leave granted to file an application for judicial review should be set aside for failure to file the substantive application within the prescribed time.
  2. 2 Whether the Notice of Motion to set aside was properly filed given the existence of the substantive application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the substantive application for judicial review was filed within two days of leave being granted, as evidenced by Civil Misc. Application No. 37 of 2005. Therefore, the basis for the Notice of Motion to set aside the leave—namely, that the application had not been filed—was factually incorrect. The court further noted that the Registry staff should have informed the applicants of the existence of the substantive application and ensured that related files were handled together to avoid such procedural confusion. As a result, the Notice of Motion dated 20th May 2005 was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed.

Orders

  • Notice of Motion dated 20th May 2005 in Civil Misc. Application No. 28/2005 is dismissed with no order as to costs.