[2020] KEHC 3309 (KLR)
The court found that although leave was granted for the main application, the applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient urgency to justify certification for hearing during the court recess. The orders allegedly flouted by the 1st Respondent were issued in 2018 and 2019, and no new or compelling circumstances were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 3309 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Elijah Kathiari Mikwa; Applicant: Daniel Nyakundi Oyaro; Applicant: Mark Kakai Nangalama; Applicant: Solomon Kipkemboi Mayo; Respondent: Pentecostal Assemblies of God - Kenya Church; Respondent: The Honourable Attorney General; Respondent: The Registrar of Societies; Respondent: Rev. Patrick Musungu Lihanda
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Constitutional Petition 6 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Application for Leave to Be Heard During Recess; Certification of Urgency
- Outcome
- Leave granted for main application; urgency not certified; matter to proceed inter partes in new term.
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Certification of Urgency, Leave to Be Heard, Constitutional Rights Enforcement
- 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
Elijah Kathiari Mikwa
Applicant
Daniel Nyakundi Oyaro
Applicant
Mark Kakai Nangalama
Applicant
Solomon Kipkemboi Mayo
Applicant
Pentecostal Assemblies of God - Kenya Church
Respondent
The Honourable Attorney General
Respondent
The Registrar of Societies
Respondent
Rev. Patrick Musungu Lihanda
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Application for Leave to Be Heard During Recess; Certification of Urgency
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application discloses sufficient urgency to warrant certification for hearing during court recess.
- 2 Whether leave should be granted for the main application to be heard during recess.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although leave was granted for the main application, the applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient urgency to justify certification for hearing during the court recess. The orders allegedly flouted by the 1st Respondent were issued in 2018 and 2019, and no new or compelling circumstances were presented to show why the matter could not await the normal term. Consequently, the court declined to certify the matter as urgent and directed that the respondents be served for inter partes consideration in the new term. The file was referred back to the Kakamega High Court for conclusion, with a mention date set for directions.
Court Disposition
Leave granted for main application; urgency not certified; matter to proceed inter partes in new term.
Orders
- Leave granted for the main application to be heard.
- Application for certification of urgency declined.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT SIAYA
KAKAMEGA HIGH COURT CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 6 OF 2018
(CORAM: R. E. ABURILI - J.)
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 1, 2, 22, 23, 27, 32,36, 38 AND
81 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010 AMONG OTHERS
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE SOCIETIES ACT
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE PENTECOSTAL
ASSEMBLIES OF GOD - KENYA, CONSTITUTION
ELIJAH KATHIARI MIKWA..................................................................1ST PETITIONER
DANIEL NYAKUNDI OYARO................................................................2ND PETITIONER
MARK KAKAI NANGALAMA..............................................................3RD PETITIONER
SOLOMON KIPKEMBOI MAYO...........................................................4TH PETITIONER
VERSUS
PENTECOSTAL ASSEMBLIES OF GOD - KENYA CHURCH.....1ST RESPONDENT
THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL.................................2ND RESPONDENT
THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES....................................................3RD RESPONDENT
REV. PATRICK MUSUNGU LIHANDA...........................................4TH RESPONDENT
RULING
1. I have considered the application for leave to be heard during the recess. I grant leave on the main application.
2. I have perused the prayers, grounds, supporting affidavit and the annexture thereto.
3. I observe that the orders which the 1st Respondent is alleged to have flouted were issued in 2018 and 2019.
4. I find no urgency disclosed.
5. I decline to certify the matter as urgent and direct the applicant to serve the Respondents for interpartes consideration in the new term.
6. Mention for directions before the Presiding Judge in Kakamega on 21/9/2020.
7. File referred back to Kakamega High Court for conclusion.
Date, signed and Delivered at Siaya this 3rd Day of September 2020
R.E. ABURILI
JUDGE