[2015] KEELRC 1158 (KLR)
The court found that the delay in filing the substantive motion was satisfactorily explained by the applicants' advocate, who relied on a colleague to hold brief and subsequently fell ill, causing the failure to file within the prescribed period. The court noted that the respondents did not oppose the application...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELRC 1158 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joseph Kwemoi Pongizi; Applicant: Joseph Wqago Ndegwa; Respondent: Traffic Commandant; Respondent: The Base Commander Ruiru; Respondent: Inspector General of Police; Respondent: National Police Service Commission
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 22 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Application to Enlarge Time for Filing Substantive Motion
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- HS Wasilwa
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review Procedure, Extension of Time, Procedural Default
- 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
Joseph Kwemoi Pongizi
Applicant
Joseph Wqago Ndegwa
Applicant
Traffic Commandant
Respondent
The Base Commander Ruiru
Respondent
Inspector General of Police
Respondent
National Police Service Commission
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Application to Enlarge Time for Filing Substantive Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should enlarge time for filing the substantive Notice of Motion in judicial review proceedings.
- 2 Whether the delay in filing the substantive motion was excusable due to counsel's illness and reliance on a colleague.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the delay in filing the substantive motion was satisfactorily explained by the applicants' advocate, who relied on a colleague to hold brief and subsequently fell ill, causing the failure to file within the prescribed period. The court noted that the respondents did not oppose the application and that no prejudice would be suffered by them if the extension was granted. Exercising its discretion, the court allowed the application for enlargement of time and directed that the motion filed be deemed properly on record, emphasizing the importance of substantive justice over procedural technicalities.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Time for filing the substantive Notice of Motion is enlarged; the Notice of Motion dated 15/12/2014 is deemed properly filed and on record.
- The applicants are to serve the petition on the respondents within 14 days from the date of the ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF KENYA
JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. 22 OF 2014
(FORMERLY JR 344/14)
(BEFORE HON. JUSTICE HELLEN S. WASILWA ON 30TH APRIL, 2015)
JOSEPH KWEMOI PONGIZI ……………...…...………. 1ST APPLICANT
JOSEPH WQAGO NDEGWA ……………...……………2ND APPLICANT
VERSUS
TRAFFIC COMMANDANT ……………..…………..…..1ST RESPONDENT
THE BASE COMMANDER RUIRU…………......…..…2ND RESPONDENT
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE …………….….3RD RESPONDENT
NATIONAL POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION ………4TH RESPONDENT
RULING
The Application before court is one dated 18/12/2014 and brought by the Applicants herein under Certificate of urgency. The application was filed in court on 22/12/2014 through an exparte Notice of Motion. The Applicants seek orders that:
That the Honourable court be pleased to enlarge time within which the Notice of Motion upon being granted leave to file Judicial Review proceedings should have been filed and the Notice of Motion dated 15/12/2014 be deemed as properly filed and duly on record;
That the court be pleased to issue urgent directions as to the hearing of the Notice of Motion dated 15/12/2014;
That costs of this application be provided for.
The application is based on the annexed affidavit of Daniel Wokabi Mathenge herein and on the grounds:
That on that day, exparte applicant’s counsel instructed a counsel to hold his brief whom he had informed to seek that the matter be placed aside as he was held up in another court, and he subsequently wrote a note on his brief that the matter was to be heard on 20/11/2014;
That the counsel who held exparte applicants counsel brief informed him that the court had directed that the application for leave be listed for directions on 20/11/2014;
That on the 20/11/2014 exparte applicants counsel appeared in court and the matter having not been listed went to the registry to inquire of the same and he was informed that the matter was scheduled for mention on 4/12/2014;
That exparte applicant’s counsel reliance on a professional colleague’s proper handling in holding his brief led to exparte applicants counsel causing a mistake in failure to file the substantive motion in time.
The Application is supported by the supporting affidavit of Daniel Wokabi Mathenge herein who depones that he is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya and has conduct of this matter on behalf of the exparte Applicants.
He depones that on 23/10/2014 when the application for leave came up for hearing of the same was allowed, the Respondents had not filed any response in opposition to it. On the same day, he depones, he had instructed Counsel to hold her brief, whom he informed to seek that the matter be placed aside as he was held up in another court and he subsequently wrote a note on his brief that the matter was to be heard on 20//11/2014. On this day however, he appeared in court and noted that the matter had not been listed. On 5/12/2014, he noted that leave to file the substantive motion within 21 days was granted on 23/10/2014.
He was unable however to file this Motion as direction as he fell ill on 8/12/2014 and resumed office on 15/12/2014. It is for this reason that he has moved court to have the time within which to file the substantive motion enlarged so that what he filed in court on 15/12/2014 be admitted and be deemed as properly on record.
This application was not opposed by the Respondents. I find no prejudice will be suffered by the Respondent if this application is allowed. I exercise my discretion under the law and allow the application. I direct further that the Applicant Petitioner should forthwith serve this petition on the Respondent within 14 days from the date herein.
The petition will henceforth without delay set the case for mention on an appropriate day for further directions.
Dated and delivered in open Court this 30th day of April, 2015.
HON. LADY JUSTICE HELLEN WASILWA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
No appearance for Claimant
No appearance for Respondent