[2020] KEHC 526 (KLR)
The court found that the Applicant failed to provide any evidence of the decision by the 1st Respondent to suspend the bank accounts or of the alleged requests for documentation. The court further noted that the dispute regarding the suspension of the accounts is already the subject of pending proceedings in the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 526 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: George Karanja on behalf of Alliance of Slum Media Organizations; Respondent: The County Director of Social Services (Nairobi) Ministry of East African Community & Regional Development; Respondent: The Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E080 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Application for Leave
- Outcome
- application struck out
- Judges
- P Nyamweya
- Legal Topics
- Fair Administrative Action, Account Freezing, Right to Be Heard, Judicial Review Procedure
- 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
George Karanja on behalf of Alliance of Slum Media Organizations
Applicant
The County Director of Social Services (Nairobi) Ministry of East African Community & Regional Development
Respondent
The Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Application for Leave
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st Respondent's suspension of the Applicant's bank accounts was made without due process and in violation of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
- 2 Whether the Applicant demonstrated an arguable case for the grant of leave for judicial review orders.
- 3 Whether the application was an abuse of the court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Applicant failed to provide any evidence of the decision by the 1st Respondent to suspend the bank accounts or of the alleged requests for documentation. The court further noted that the dispute regarding the suspension of the accounts is already the subject of pending proceedings in the Chief Magistrate Court, Milimani Law Courts, to which the 2nd Respondent is a party. In the absence of evidence of the impugned administrative action and given the existence of parallel proceedings, the court held that the Applicant had not demonstrated an arguable case for the grant of leave for judicial review. The application was therefore struck out as an abuse of the court...
Court Disposition
application struck out
Orders
- The Chamber Summons application dated 21st December 2020 is struck out.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION NO. MISC. E080 OF 2020
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDERS OF PROHIBITION, CERTIORARI AND INJUNCTION
BETWEEN
GEORGE KARANJA on behalf of
ALLIANCE OF SLUM MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS............................APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE COUNTY DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL SERVICES
(NAIROBI) MINISTRY OF EAST AFRICAN
COMMUNITY& REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT .........................1ST RESPONDENT
THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK OF KENYA
LIMITED.......................................................................................2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Applicant herein have filed an application by way of a Chamber Summons dated 21st December 2020, seeking the following orders:
a) THAT the Court be pleased to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for an order of Certiorari to remove to this Court and to quashthedecision made by the 1st Respondent on or about 1st December 2020, suspending the operations of the Applicant's bank account numbers [xxxx], [xxxx] AND [xxxx]\.[xxxx].
b)THATthis Court be pleased to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for an order of Prohibition directed at the 1st Respondent, prohibitinghim from hearing any complaint or making any decision, adverse or otherwise regarding the Applicant's bank account numbers [xxxx], [xxxx]and [xxxx].
c)THATthe grant of leave as prayed by the Applicant herein does operate as a stay of the decision made by the Respondent, suspending the operations of the Applicants bank account numbers [xxxx], [xxxx] and[xxxx]or implementation of the decision by the 2nd Respondent.
d)THATthis Court be pleased to grant an order of Injunction directed at the 2nd Respondent herein restraining it from implementing the administrative decision of the 1st Respondent or further freezing the Applicant's bank account numbers [xxxx], [xxxx] and [xxxx]pending the determination of the present application.
e)THATthe Court be pleased to grant leave to the applicant to apply for order of assessment of damages and compensation to be paid bythe 1st and 2nd Respondents.
f)THATthe costs of this application be provided for
2. The grounds for the application are stated in the Applicant’s statutory statement dated 21st December 2020, and a verifying affidavit sworn on the same date by the Applicant. The Applicant’s Advocate, George Lwande, also filed a supporting affidavit sworn on 21st December 2020.
3. The main grounds for the application are that the 1st Respondent has made a decision to suspend the operations of the Applicant's bank account numbers [xxxx], [xxxx] and [xxxx]. held with the interested party, without giving the Applicant prior and adequate notice nor reasons for the said administrative action, and without according the Applicant an opportunity to be heard and make representations, contrary to the provisions of section 4 of the Fair Administration Act.
4. Further, that the 1st and 2nd Respondents have refused to provide the Applicant with a copy of the letter embodying the decision of the 1st Respondent or any documentation on the suspension of the bank accounts despite repeated requests by the applicant and their advocates on record.
5. After perusal of the pleadings, I note that the Applicant has not annexed any evidence of the impugned decision by the 1st Respondent, nor of the alleged request for the decision by its Advocates. The Advocate in this regard has averred to visits and telephone calls made to the 1st Respondent which are not supported by any evidence.
6. In addition, the Applicant has averred that there is a dispute between him and former officials of his organization which is the subject matter of court proceedings in NRB CM MCCC Case No 2651 of 2020which is currently pending at the Chief Magistrate Court, Milimani Law Courts and which the 2nd Respondent herein is a party. Lastly, the suspension of the Applicant’s organization accounts are an issue in the said judicial proceedings. The Applicant annexed copies of pleadings filed in the said case.
7. In the premises I find that not only has the Applicant not demonstrated that he has an arguable case, but that the application by Chamber Summons application dated 21st December 2020 is also brought in abuse of the process of court.
8. I accordingly strike out the Chamber Summons application dated 21st December 2020 with no order as to costs.
9. Orders accordingly.
DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
P. NYAMWEYA
JUDGE