[2021] KEHC 7944 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 7944 (KLR)

The court found that the public notice challenged by the petitioners had already taken effect by the time the application for conservatory orders was made. As such, granting orders to stay its implementation would be futile. The court further held that there was no urgency in the main motion since the impugned...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 7944 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Omondi Ochieng; Applicant: Maurice Juma; Applicant: Luke Ocholla; Applicant: William Oduor; Applicant: Silas Owiti; Applicant: Vincent Otieno; Respondent: City Manager-Kisumu; Respondent: Kisumu City Board; Respondent: County Government of Kisumu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Siaya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Constitutional Petition E005 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application for Conservatory Orders and Leave to Be Heard During Recess
Outcome
Application for conservatory orders declined; leave to be heard during recess granted; directions for service and mention issued.
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Conservatory Orders, Public Notice Challenge, Right to Fair Administrative Action
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Conservatory Orders Public Notice Challenge Right to Fair Administrative Action

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 Omondi Ochieng

Applicant

Maurice Juma

Applicant

Luke Ocholla

Applicant

William Oduor

Applicant

Silas Owiti

Applicant

Vincent Otieno

Applicant

City Manager-Kisumu

Respondent

Kisumu City Board

Respondent

County Government of Kisumu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application for Conservatory Orders and Leave to Be Heard During Recess

  1. 1 Whether the petitioners are entitled to conservatory orders staying the implementation of the public notice dated 19/2/2021.
  2. 2 Whether the application for conservatory orders is urgent and should be certified as such.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the public notice challenged by the petitioners had already taken effect by the time the application for conservatory orders was made. As such, granting orders to stay its implementation would be futile. The court further held that there was no urgency in the main motion since the impugned action had already occurred. Consequently, the application for conservatory orders was not certified as urgent, and the petitioners were directed to serve the respondents for interpartes consideration of the petition and application.

Court Disposition

Application for conservatory orders declined; leave to be heard during recess granted; directions for service and mention issued.

Orders

  • Leave granted to the petitioners to be heard during the recess.
  • Application for conservatory orders declined for lack of urgency and futility.