https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7663

Nafula v Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council (Judicial Review E081 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 7663 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (5 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7663 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Judicial Review Judicial Review E081 of 2026 WM Musyoka, J June 5, 2026 Between Felister Nafula Applicant and Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council Respondent Judgment 1.These Judicial Review proceedings are brought under the Fair Administration of Action Act, Cap 7L, Laws of Kenya. 2.They were initiated at the instance of the applicant, vide the Originating Motion, dated 27th January 2026, for the order of mandamus, directed at the respondent, to compel it to deliver a decision or determination in Disciplinary Cause No. 29 of 2023 within 14 days, and, in default, to make consequential orders; declarations that the delay was inordinate, unreasonable, procedurally unfair and violated fair administrative action, under Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administration of Action Act; and compensation in general damages for violation of rights. 3.The affidavit in support was sworn by the applicant. It is averred that the applicant was the complainant in Disciplinary Cause No. 29 of 2023. A hearing was allegedly conducted on 21st February 2025, when evidence was taken and the case was closed. Submissions were to be filed by both sides within 21 days, after which a decision was to be rendered within 60 days. No determination has been forthcoming since then, despite letters being written to the respondent. 2 documents are attached in support, being 2 letters allegedly written by the Advocates for the applicant to the respondent, both of which bear the official stamp of the respondent, in receipt. 4.There is an affidavit of service, being proof that the court process herein was served on the respondent. The respondent did not appear, nor file any response. The claim is undefended. 5.I have serious difficulties with the filings herein. The cause is allegedly founded on proceedings that were conducted in Disciplinary Cause No. 29 of 2023, and in respect of which a determination is said to be pending. These proceedings are meant to compel the respondent to render a decision in those proceedings. Yet, the applicant has not filed any single document to establish existence of those proceedings in Disciplinary Cause No. 29 of 2023. 6.She claims to be the complainant. If indeed she is the complainant in the matter, she must have filed some document, to lodge the claim. That document has not been exhibited. None of any of the other documents filed in Disciplinary Cause No. 29 of 2023 are before me. It is alleged that written submissions were filed, none have been exhibited. All I have are 2 demand letters from the Advocates. That is not enough to establish that Disciplinary Cause No. 29 of 2023 exists, and proceedings were conducted in it, which would demonstrate that a duty has accrued, on the part of the respondent to render a determination on the matter. 7.Courts of law do not act in vain. They act on the basis of some material being placed before them. It is not enough to make allegations in affidavits, and to exhibit letters, when it is alleged that documents were in fact filed before the respondent to originate a claim. It is those filings that are critical. I have nothing before me, to move me to grant the orders sought. Consequently, I do hereby dismiss the originating motion, dated 27th January 2026. Orders accordingly. DELIVERED VIA EMAIL, DATED AND SIGNED IN CHAMBERS, AT MILIMANI, NAIROBI, THIS 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.W MUSYOKAJUDGEMr. B. Rinkanya, Court Assistant.AdvocatesMr. Ndegwa, instructed by SNW & Co Advocates LLP, for the ex parte applicant.