[2014] KEHC 8082 (KLR)
The court determined that the issues raised in the petition were too complex and cross-cutting to be resolved solely on the basis of affidavits and written submissions. Given the nature of the claims and the fact that the petitioners were acting in person, the court found that proceeding without oral evidence could...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 8082 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Mbugua (Rev); Applicant: Wilson Ng'ang'a Kabiria; Respondent: The Hon. Prof. Githu Muigai; Respondent: The Hon. Dr. Willy Mutunga Chief Justice & President of the Supreme Court of Kenya; Respondent: Mr. Keriako Tobiko Director of Public Prosecution; Respondent: Mr. David Kamaiyo Inspector General of Police; Respondent: Dr. Evans Kidero Governor Nairobi; Respondent: Nairobi City County; Respondent: National Construction Authority
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 447 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Directions Before Full Hearing
- Outcome
- Directions issued for oral evidence and consideration of bench composition under Article 165(4).
- Judges
- I Lenaola
- Legal Topics
- Article 165 4, Oral Evidence, Liability of State Officers
- 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
John Mbugua (Rev)
Applicant
Wilson Ng'ang'a Kabiria
Applicant
The Hon. Prof. Githu Muigai
Respondent
The Hon. Dr. Willy Mutunga Chief Justice & President of the Supreme Court of Kenya
Respondent
Mr. Keriako Tobiko Director of Public Prosecution
Respondent
Mr. David Kamaiyo Inspector General of Police
Respondent
Dr. Evans Kidero Governor Nairobi
Respondent
Nairobi City County
Respondent
National Construction Authority
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Directions Before Full Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the liability of the respondents can be determined on the basis of affidavits and submissions alone.
- 2 Whether the matter raises substantial questions of law under Article 165(4) of the Constitution requiring an expanded bench.
- 3 Whether oral evidence is necessary for a fair determination of the issues.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that the issues raised in the petition were too complex and cross-cutting to be resolved solely on the basis of affidavits and written submissions. Given the nature of the claims and the fact that the petitioners were acting in person, the court found that proceeding without oral evidence could result in injustice to all parties. Accordingly, the court recalled its earlier orders and directed that the matter proceed by way of oral evidence, allowing for a comprehensive and fair determination of all issues. The court also directed the parties to consider whether the case raised substantial constitutional questions under Article 165(4), which could require a bench of...
Court Disposition
Directions issued for oral evidence and consideration of bench composition under Article 165(4).
Orders
- Earlier orders recalled.
- Matter to be heard by way of oral evidence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
42 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION
PETITION NO.447 OF 2013
BETWEEN
JOHN MBUGUA (REV)........….........................................1ST PETITIONER
WILSON NG'ANG'A KABIRIA...........................2ND PETITIONER
AND
THE HON. PROF. GITHU MUIGAI.....….........................1ST RESPONDENT
THE HON. DR. WILLY MUTUNGA CHIEF JUSTICE & PRESIDENT
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF KENYA.........................2ND RESPONDENT
MR. KERIAKO TOBIKO DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION.............................................................3RD RESPONDENT
MR. DAVID KAMAIYO INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE...................................................4TH RESPONDENT
DR. EVANS KIDERO GOVERNOR NAIROBI..................5TH RESPONDENT
NAIROBI CITY COUNTY...............................................6TH RESPONDENT
NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY....................7TH RESPONDENT
DIRECTIONS
This file has had a chequered history. It has moved from the Environment and Land Division to this Division then to the High Court in Nakuru and back to this Division. The reasons for the said movements include the fact that the pleadings are wobbly and raise cross-cutting issues in terms of place, incident and time.
Nonetheless, on 22nd January 2014, Parties agreed to file Submissions on the issue of liability of the Respondents, if at all, and directions were to be given later on whether evidence as to compensation should be tendered. Parties indeed made submissions on 27th March 2014 and I retired to consider that issue.
Upon carefully reading the file, I noted that the Petitioners raised a plethora of issues that required further interrogation and which in all fairness cannot be addressed through Affidavits and Submissions. To do so and noting that the Petitioners are acting in person and noting the issues raised, may well cause injustice to all parties.
In the event, I will recall the orders issued earlier and instead direct as follows;
Let this matter be heard by way of oral evidence and a wholesome judgment on all issues arising can thereafter be given.
Further, parties may consider whether this is a matter to be heard by one Judge or whether it raises substantial issues of law under Article 165(4)of the Constitution and therefore whether more than one Judge is required.
Orders accordingly.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2014
ISAAC LENAOLA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Kariuki – Court clerk
Petitioners present
Miss Cherono for 7th Respondent
Mr. Ojwang for 1st Respondent
Miss Nyamrega for 3rd & 4th Respondent
Order
Directions given.
ISAAC LENAOLA
JUDGE
Further Order
Oral evidence to be taken on 10/10/2014.
ISAAC LENAOLA
JUDGE