[2015] KEELRC 1158 (KLR)

[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
Employment and Labour Judicial Review Procedure Extension of Time Procedural Default

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether the court should enlarge time for filing the substantive Notice of Motion in judicial review proceedings.
  2. 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.