[2000] KEHC 105 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's Notice of Motion sought an additional relief (Certiorari) that was not included in the leave granted for judicial review. According to Order 53 of the English Supreme Court Practice Rules, which guides judicial review procedure, an applicant is restricted to the reliefs and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KEHC 105 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Isabel Waffubwa; Respondent: The Director, Kenya Wildlife Services; Respondent: The Attorney-General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 35 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection upheld; additional reliefs in the motion disallowed
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review Procedure, Leave for Judicial Review, Preliminary Objection, Amendment of Pleadings
- 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
Isabel Waffubwa
Applicant
The Director, Kenya Wildlife Services
Respondent
The Attorney-General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Notice of Motion sought reliefs not included in the leave granted for judicial review.
- 2 Whether the introduction of additional reliefs in the substantive application without amendment is fatal to the application.
- 3 Whether the preliminary objection raised goes to the root of the claim.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's Notice of Motion sought an additional relief (Certiorari) that was not included in the leave granted for judicial review. According to Order 53 of the English Supreme Court Practice Rules, which guides judicial review procedure, an applicant is restricted to the reliefs and grounds set out in the statement filed with the application for leave. The court emphasized that any new reliefs or grounds must be introduced only by way of amendment with leave of the court. Since the applicant did not seek such leave, the introduction of additional reliefs in the substantive application was impermissible. Consequently, the preliminary objection was upheld as it...
Court Disposition
preliminary objection upheld; additional reliefs in the motion disallowed
Orders
- The preliminary objection is upheld.
- Additional reliefs introduced in the Chamber Summons are not allowed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 35 OF 1998
ISABEL WAFFUBWA………………………………………………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
THE DIRECTOR
KENYA WILDLIFE SERVICES……………………..………… DEFENDANTS
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL……………………………………RESPONDENTS
RULING
Mr. Muthoga raised a Preliminary objection that the Motion is at variance with the leave granted for the Judicial Review in that the leave did not include the Orders sought in the motion. The Motion has other prayers for which the leave was granted. The affidavit is necessary only for the verification of the facts and it is not supposed to serve as the carrier for the reliefs. Joining of the Attorney-General and Mr. Western are misjoinders. The mistake cannot be corrected by amendment.
Mr. Mwenesi replied that a preliminary objection to be valid must be such that if upheld will go to the root of the claim, which is not the case in this one.
I have looked at the leave granted and compared it with the orders sought in the Notice of Motion. I agree with Mr. Muthoga that in the Notice of Motion there is an additional prayer of Certiorari, which was not in the Order which gave the leave.
As to whether the mistake is fatal, I had to look at Order 53 in English Supreme Court Practice Rules for guidance and to the English Practice on Judicial Review.
An application for Judicial Review must be made into two stages. First being the obtaining of the leave for Judicial Review and thereafter the substantiative application for the Judicial Review.
The application for leave in accordance with the order, the applicant must:-
(1) have sufficient interest
(2) have a case sufficiently arguable to merit investigation at the substantive hearing.
(3) must apply for the leave promptly
To show that these requirements are complied with, the application for leave must contain a statement which gives the relief sought and grounds upon which it sought. This is in addition to the verifying affidavit.
The next step would be to serve the copies of statement relied on support of the application for leave with the notice of motion or summons. It is this statement which was used in the application for leave which forms the basis for the substantive application. The statement therefore must contain all the reliefs and grounds in support of the application. The applicant can not introduce other reliefs which were not contained in the statement. Order 53/14/71 provides that:
“ A party will not be allowed to rely upon any ground or seek any relief at the hearing except the grounds and relief set out in the Statement…”.
This is the English position and I believe it applies in our situation as well. The court has power to grant an applicant leave to amend his statement. If the applicant wishes to rely on other grounds or reliefs other than those in the Statement, he has the option of applying for leave to amend. As it stands now the additional reliefs introduced in the Chamber Summons cannot be allowed.
The Preliminary objection is upheld.
Delivered and dated at Nairobi this 14th day of July, 2000.
KASANGA MULWA
JUDGE