[2014] KEHC 5667 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 5667 (KLR)

The court determined that, given the petitioners have acknowledged the existence of a parallel judicial review application in Malindi (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2013) challenging the same deregistration decision, it is necessary to inquire into the nature and status of those proceedings before proceeding...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 5667 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Jesus Care Centre Ministry International; Applicant: Rev. Bishop Thomas Kakala Tsuma; Respondent: Registrar of Societies; Respondent: Joseph Onyango, Deputy Registrar of Societies; Respondent: Attorney General; Respondent: Redeemed Gospel Church Inc
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 469 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Interlocutory Directions Prior to Judgment
Outcome
Interlocutory directions issued; matter adjourned for further mention.
Judges
DAS Majanja
Legal Topics
Fair Administrative Action, Judicial Review Proceedings, Deregistration of Societies
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Fair Administrative Action Judicial Review Proceedings Deregistration of Societies

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jesus Care Centre Ministry International

Applicant

Rev. Bishop Thomas Kakala Tsuma

Applicant

Registrar of Societies

Respondent

Joseph Onyango, Deputy Registrar of Societies

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Redeemed Gospel Church Inc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Interlocutory Directions Prior to Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the cancellation of the 1st petitioner's registration was done in violation of Article 47(1) of the Constitution guaranteeing fair administrative action.
  2. 2 Whether the existence of parallel judicial review proceedings in Malindi affects the determination of this petition.

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that, given the petitioners have acknowledged the existence of a parallel judicial review application in Malindi (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2013) challenging the same deregistration decision, it is necessary to inquire into the nature and status of those proceedings before proceeding further with the current petition. The court found that the outcome or progress of the Malindi proceedings may have a direct bearing on the issues before it. Therefore, the court directed the petitioners to file and serve a further affidavit annexing all pleadings from the Malindi case, to ensure that all relevant facts and procedural developments are before the court prior to...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory directions issued; matter adjourned for further mention.

Orders

  • Petitioners shall file and serve a further affidavit annexing all pleadings in Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2013 (Malindi) within fourteen (14) days.
  • The matter shall be fixed for mention for further directions on 15th May 2014.