[2015] KEHC 6949 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 6949 (KLR)

The court held that the mention before Lenaola, J on 21st November, 2014 satisfied the Supreme Court's directive that the matter be mentioned within 15 days of its judgment. There was no requirement that the mention be before the full bench or that the matter be disposed of within that period. The application for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 6949 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Hon. Lady Justice Jeanne W Gacheche; Respondent: The Vetting of Judges and Magistrates Board; Respondent: Judicial Service Commission
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review 295 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Directions and Adjournment
Outcome
Application for adjournment allowed; directions on hearing issued.
Judges
I Lenaola, EM Ngugi, P Nyamweya, GV Odunga, DN Musyoka
Legal Topics
Judicial Vetting, Jurisdiction of Vetting Board, Supreme Court Orders, Judicial Review Procedure
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Judicial Vetting Jurisdiction of Vetting Board Supreme Court Orders Judicial Review Procedure

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hon. Lady Justice Jeanne W Gacheche

Applicant

The Vetting of Judges and Magistrates Board

Respondent

Judicial Service Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Directions and Adjournment

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings on 21st November, 2014 constituted the mention contemplated by the Supreme Court to be undertaken within 15 days.
  2. 2 Whether the hearing of the matter ought to be adjourned.
  3. 3 What issues will fall for determination at the hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the mention before Lenaola, J on 21st November, 2014 satisfied the Supreme Court's directive that the matter be mentioned within 15 days of its judgment. There was no requirement that the mention be before the full bench or that the matter be disposed of within that period. The application for adjournment was merited given that related matters were not before the court. The court further directed that the issue for determination would be the import and impact of the Supreme Court judgment on the pending High Court proceedings. The hearing would proceed by oral and/or written submissions at the parties' option, with no affidavits to be admitted, and the matter was...

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment allowed; directions on hearing issued.

Orders

  • The mention on 21st November, 2014 before Lenaola, J is deemed to have satisfied the Supreme Court's directive.
  • Application for adjournment of today's hearing is allowed.