[2025] KEHC 9407 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 9407 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants, having failed to take any steps to prosecute their chamber summons for leave to apply for judicial review despite being given directions and notified, demonstrated lack of interest in pursuing the matter. The application was filed in 2023 but no action was taken until 2025, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 9407 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Anita Cheptekei Juma; Applicant: Daniel Njuguna Muhia; Respondent: The Inspector General of Police; Respondent: The Director of Public Prosecution; Interested Party: Beatrice Ndirangu; Interested Party: Erick Kamau Livasia; Interested Party: Abdulrahman Onyango Mithiga; Interested Party: Charles Abere Manyange; Interested Party: Paul Macharia Nduthua
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E013 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Judicial Review Procedure, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Judicial Review Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Anita Cheptekei Juma

Applicant

Daniel Njuguna Muhia

Applicant

The Inspector General of Police

Respondent

The Director of Public Prosecution

Respondent

Beatrice Ndirangu

Interested Party

Erick Kamau Livasia

Interested Party

Abdulrahman Onyango Mithiga

Interested Party

Charles Abere Manyange

Interested Party

Paul Macharia Nduthua

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the chamber summons seeking leave for judicial review should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants failed to comply with court directions and prosecute their application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants, having failed to take any steps to prosecute their chamber summons for leave to apply for judicial review despite being given directions and notified, demonstrated lack of interest in pursuing the matter. The application was filed in 2023 but no action was taken until 2025, and even then, the applicants did not comply with the court's directions. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application for want of prosecution, noting that the applicants had not moved the court to have the application heard and had not complied with the Fair Administrative Action Rules, 2024. The dismissal was made with no order as to costs, and the file was...

Court Disposition

application dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The chamber summons dated 1/9/2023 is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • No orders as to costs.