[2019] KEHC 49 (KLR)
The court declined to grant the interim orders restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' businesses at the mention stage, holding that it would be inappropriate to do so before the application is fixed for hearing and all parties are served with hearing notices. Granting such orders at this...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 49 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Gilbert K. Mutai; Applicant: Beatrice Chepkurui; Applicant: Geoffrey Sigei; Applicant: Leonard Chepkwony; Applicant: Edwin Kimutai Maritim; Respondent: Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior & Co-ordination of National Government; Respondent: The Inspector General of Police; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: County Government of Bomet
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bomet
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 6 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Interlocutory Application; Mention for Directions
- Outcome
- Interim orders declined; time granted for responses; mention for possible consolidation.
- Judges
- GMA Dulu
- Legal Topics
- Interim Injunctions, Right to Carry on Business, Procedural Fairness, Joinder and Consolidation
- 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
Gilbert K. Mutai
Applicant
Beatrice Chepkurui
Applicant
Geoffrey Sigei
Applicant
Leonard Chepkwony
Applicant
Edwin Kimutai Maritim
Applicant
Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior & Co-ordination of National Government
Respondent
The Inspector General of Police
Respondent
Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
County Government of Bomet
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Interlocutory Application; Mention for Directions
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether interim orders restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' businesses should be granted at the mention stage.
- 2 Whether the matter should be consolidated with Bomet High Court Petition No. 4 of 2019.
- 3 Whether the respondents should be granted time to file responses.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to grant the interim orders restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' businesses at the mention stage, holding that it would be inappropriate to do so before the application is fixed for hearing and all parties are served with hearing notices. Granting such orders at this stage would amount to a final determination of the main prayer without due process. The court also deferred the issue of consolidation until the next mention date when both files would be available and parties could be heard. The respondents were granted 14 days to file their responses, as there was no objection to this request.
Court Disposition
Interim orders declined; time granted for responses; mention for possible consolidation.
Orders
- Respondents are granted 14 days from today to file responses to the application.
- This matter will be mentioned on 6th November 2019 with Bomet Petition No. 4 of 2019 to consider consolidation of the two matters.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT BOMET
PETITION NO. 6 OF 2019
GILBERT K. MUTAI .............................................................1ST PETITIONER
BEATRICE CHEPKURUI....................................................2ND PETITIONER
GEOFFREY SIGEI .............................................................. 3RD PETITIONER
LEONARD CHEPKWONY...................................................4TH PETITIONER
EDWIN KIMUTAI MARITIM..............................................5TH PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
CABINET SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR & CO-ORDINATION
OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT........................................1STRESPONDENT
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE....................2ND RESPONDENT
HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL..........................................3RD RESPONDENT
COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF BOMET......................... 4TH RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This matter came up in court yesterday 2nd October 2019 for mention for directions, having been filed during the vacation and placed then before the Judge at Naivasha, who referred the file to Bomet.
2. When the matter was mentioned before me yesterday, Ms. Chepkemoi counsel for the petitioners asked for grant of interim orders as requested in prayer 2 of the application dated 29th August 2019 and that their matter be consolidated with Bomet High Court Petition No. 4 of 2019 already fixed for hearing on 6th November 2019. Mr. Koech for the 4threspondent, in his response, said that his client had a minimal role in the matter and that the actions complained of were conceived, notices issued and implemented by organs of the National Government, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents, who in their wisdom had already closed the businesses. He asked for time 14 days to file a response for the 4th respondent.
3. In response, counsel for the petitioners agreed that the respondents be allowed to respond and explain their position, but urged that the court issues interim orders.
4. With regard to consolidating this matter with the other petition slated for hearing on 6th November 2019, I will not consolidate the two matters at this time, as I do not have the other file, and cannot be certain if there might be any objection to the request by parties therein. I will only fix this petition for mention on 06/11/19, and the issue of consolidation will be dealt with on that day.
5. As regards, the request of 4th respondent for 14 days to file their response, the same has not been objected to. I will grant the request.
6. I now turn to the interim orders sought. It is actually prayer (b) of the application dated 29th August, 2019. It states as follows:
“b) That the respondents hereon jointly and severally be and are hereby restrained and/or stopped by themselves, agents, servants, assigns or representatives from arresting, charging in court, harassing, interfering and stopping the applicants from carrying on their business pending hearing and determination of this application”.
7. The application is actually an interlocutory application to a Petition filed on same date 29th August,2019, which is yet to be fixed for hearing. When the counsel for the 4th respondent stated that the businesses were already closed, counsel for the applicants/petitioners did not say anything on that submission. I expected her to clarify the actual status position as at now.
8. I cannot go into the merits of this application now as it was not for hearing today. I however, find it inappropriate to issue the interim orders sought now, until the application is fixed for hearing, and all parties served with a hearing notice which has not happened, as prayer (b) is the main prayer in the application. In my view, issuing the interim orders sought therein will be a final determination of the application before fixing it for hearing, which his wrong.
9. I thus order as follows:
1. The respondents are granted 14 days from today to file responses to the application.
2. This matter will be mentioned on 6th November 2019 with Bomet Petition No. 4 of 2019 to consider consolidation of the two matters.
3. In the meantime, I decline to grant the main prayer in the application dated 29/8/2019 at this mention stage.
Dated at Bomet this 3rd October, 2019.
GEORGE DULU
JUDGE