[2010] KEHC 2425 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the requirements for review under Order XLIV rule 1, as no new or important facts or errors apparent on the face of the record were demonstrated. The orders extending time were made in the court's discretion, and there were no sufficient grounds to interfere with...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 2425 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Emily Wanyama Wasike; Respondent: Attorney General; Interested Third Party: Francis M. Marko
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application 70 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Striking Out Orders
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Review of Court Orders, Extension of Time, Service of Process
- 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
Emily Wanyama Wasike
Applicant
Attorney General
Respondent
Francis M. Marko
Interested Third Party
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Striking Out Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for review meets the requirements under Order XLIV rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the orders granted on 28/08/2002 should be reviewed or struck out.
- 3 Whether the applicant was properly served with the application that led to the orders of 28/08/2002.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the requirements for review under Order XLIV rule 1, as no new or important facts or errors apparent on the face of the record were demonstrated. The orders extending time were made in the court's discretion, and there were no sufficient grounds to interfere with that discretion. Although the applicant was not served with the application that led to the orders of 28/08/2002, this did not warrant review or striking out of the orders, especially as the substantive application for judicial review had already been allowed in the interests of justice. The application for review and striking out was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for review and striking out is dismissed.
- The respondent shall meet the costs of this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT BUNGOMA
CIVIL MISCELLEANOUS APPLICATION 70 OF 2002
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY EMILY WANYAMA WASIKE FOR AN ORDER OF CERTIORARI:
AND
IN THE MATTER OF LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL ACT, 1990
BETWEEN
EMILY WANYAMA WASIKE::::::::::::::APPLICANT
~VRSHON. ATTORNEY GENERAL::::::::::::::RESPONDENT
AND
FRANCIS M. MARKO::::::::::::::INTERESTED THIRD PARTY
RULING
This is a ruling on the application dated 20/9/2002 brought by the Interested Party Francis M. Marko.It was heard by Justice Mitey on 10/07/03. The Judge thereafter retired before delivering the ruling.I have now taken over this file for purposes of writing and delivering the ruling.
The application is brought under Order VI A Rule 3, Order XLIV rules 1 and 2 and Order 53 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.It seeks for review of the court’s orders given on 28/8/2002. It also seeks for striking out of the motion filed pursuant to that order.The grounds supporting the applicationare contained in the Applicant’s affidavit and on the face of the application.Briefly, the Applicant herein alleges that the Respondent secretly and mischievously obtained the orders in issue andwithout notifying the other party, filed another application.It is claimed that the orders obtained therein are erroneous given the fact that the Respondent’s earlier proceedings had been struck out.
The application was opposed by the Respondent relying on his grounds of opposition dated 4/10/2002 and filed the same day.The Respondent contends that this application is a delaying tactic and that the court has an unfettered discretion to grant the orders sought.The Applicant should not be allowed to continue enjoying benefits accruing from an illegality.
The brief background of this matter is that the Respondent was granted leave to file a judicialreview application within 21 days.The orderswere granted and the 21 days period was to expire on 2/5/2002. The Respondent filed the application a week later which the court dismissed.The Applicant later filed another motion dated 19th July 2002 seeking for extension of time to file a fresh judicial review application.The application was heard exparte and orders granted on the 28th August 2002. The Applicantis now aggrieved by the said orders.
The said orders were granted by Justice Mbito J. after hearing the Respondent’s advocate.Order XLIX Rule 5 under which that application was brought gives the court the discretion to enlarge time where a limited time had been fixed and has expired.The court extendedthe time given earlier with ten (10) days.The orders given were in exercise of the discretion of the court.The Judge was satisfied that the respondent had good grounds to justify exercise of the discretion.
This application is brought under Order XLIV rules 1 and 2. rule 1 requires that the Applicant who is aggrieved by the order for which he seeks review must have discovered new and important facts or an error or mistake on the face of the record.The Applicant has not satisfied anyof those requirements.Rule 2 provides that an application for review, be done by the Judge who gave the orders sought to be reviewed.Justice Mbito had left the stationon transfer when Justice Miteyheard this application in 2003. I am now writing the ruling seven (7) years after the application was heard.This is not a mistake of any of the parties and it presents some difficult in attempting to review the orders of the Judge unless there are very sound grounds to do so.The substantive application for judicial review was allowed by the Judge which I believe is in the interestsof justice so that both parties can be heard in the matter.
I am convinced that the application has no meritand I dismiss it accordingly.Due to the fact that the applicant herein was not served with the applicationwhich gave riseto the orders of 28/08/2002, I hereby order that the Respondent meets the costs of this application.
F. N. MUCHEMI
JUDGE
Dated, Delivered and Signed at Bungoma this 29thday of April, 2010.
In the presence of Mr. Makokha for the Exparte Applicant.