[2001] KEHC 128 (KLR)

[2001] KEHC 128 (KLR)

The court held that the leave granted to apply for judicial review became spent when the applicant failed to file the substantive application within the 21-day period ordered by the court. Furthermore, the only ground raised for judicial review was the alleged violation of a collective bargaining agreement, which...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] KEHC 128 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Joshua Kirui; Defendant: Kenya Power & Lighting Co., Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 1196 of ??
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Discharge Leave for Judicial Review and Stay Order
Outcome
application allowed; orders granting leave and stay discharged with costs
Judges
AM Githinji
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Leave to Apply, Stay of Execution, Collective Bargaining Agreement
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Judicial Review Leave to Apply Stay of Execution Collective Bargaining Agreement

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joshua Kirui

Plaintiff

Kenya Power & Lighting Co., Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Discharge Leave for Judicial Review and Stay Order

  1. 1 Whether the leave granted to apply for judicial review should be discharged due to non-filing of substantive application within the stipulated period.
  2. 2 Whether the grounds raised, specifically violation of a collective bargaining agreement, constitute valid grounds for judicial review.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the leave granted to apply for judicial review became spent when the applicant failed to file the substantive application within the 21-day period ordered by the court. Furthermore, the only ground raised for judicial review was the alleged violation of a collective bargaining agreement, which does not constitute a valid ground for judicial review in the absence of jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice. As such, the orders granting leave and stay of execution were discharged, and the application was allowed with costs.

Court Disposition

application allowed; orders granting leave and stay discharged with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 23.10.2000 is allowed with costs.
  • The orders given on 16.10.2000 granting leave to apply for judicial review and ordering leave to operate as stay of execution are discharged.