[2017] KEHC 2544 (KLR)
The court found that although the material presented constituted new and important matters, the relief sought in the application for review was rendered moot by the fact that the 1st respondent had already been sacked from the position of Managing Director. Since the basis for the Principal Secretary to consult the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 2544 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Henry Nyabuto Ondieko; Respondent: Charles Apudo Owelle; Respondent: Attorney General (sued on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock & Fisheries); Respondent: Chairman of the Board Chemelil Sugar Company Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 25 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DAS Majanja
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, State Corporations Governance, Appointment and Removal of Directors
- 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
Henry Nyabuto Ondieko
Applicant
Charles Apudo Owelle
Respondent
Attorney General (sued on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock & Fisheries)
Respondent
Chairman of the Board Chemelil Sugar Company Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should review its judgment in light of the subsequent suspension and alleged sacking of the 1st respondent as Managing Director of Chemelil Sugar Company Limited.
- 2 Whether the actions taken by the 2nd respondent undermine the court's earlier decision regarding the appointment process under the State Corporations Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the material presented constituted new and important matters, the relief sought in the application for review was rendered moot by the fact that the 1st respondent had already been sacked from the position of Managing Director. Since the basis for the Principal Secretary to consult the State Corporations Advisory Committee no longer existed, there was no purpose to be served by reviewing the judgment. The application for review was therefore dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for review is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU
PETITION NO. 25 OF 2016
BETWEEN
HENRY NYABUTO ONDIEKO ….………..……..………………………………..… PETITIONER
AND
CHARLES APUDO OWELLE ……………...…...........................................… 1ST RESPONDENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL (SUED ON BEHALF OF THE
CABINET SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE, LIVESTOCK & FISHERIES) ……..….….……………….. 2ND RESPONDENT
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD CHEMELIL
SUGAR COMPANY LIMITED …………………………………………..…. 3RD RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The application before the court is the Notice of Motion dated 7th June 2017. It seeks a review of my judgment principally under the provisions of Order 45rule 2of theCivil Procedure Rulesandsection 80 of theCivil Procedure Act.
2. The grounds are that following the judgment, the 2nd respondent through the Permanent Secretary proceeded to suspend the 1st respondent from his position as Managing Director of Chemelil Sugar Company Limited. The petitioner contended that this action undermined the decision of this court as the State Corporations Advisory Committee was to act on a request by the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries and signify its decision within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of the judgment for the Minister to act and give his approval for the appointment of the 1st respondent in terms of section 5(3) of the State Corporations Act.
3. The applicant submitted that even after the suspension, the 1st respondent had now been sacked through the instigation of the Principal Secretary. Assuming that in fact the 1st respondent has been sacked, then this application will serve no purpose as the relief is grounded on the 1st respondent’s appointment as Managing Director. In other words, there would be no basis for the Principal Secretary to consult the SCAC as the office holder is no longer in office.
4. Although the material placed before the court constitutes new and important matters for the court to consider as a basis for review, for the reasons I have stated I decline to review the judgment. The application is dismissed but with no order as to costs.
DATED and DELIVERED at KISUMU this 1st day of November 2017.
D.S. MAJANJA
JUDGE
Petitioner in person.
Mr Ayuko instructed by Amos O. Ayuko and Company Advocates for the 1st and 3rd respondent.