[2025] KEHC 10256 (KLR)
The court found that the delay in bringing the application for judicial review was satisfactorily explained by the applicants, as it was occasioned by the respondent's conduct in filing but failing to prosecute an application for stay of execution and subsequently ignoring correspondence regarding payment. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 10256 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: James Kipkorir Kaino; Applicant: Francis Kipruto Barkoiyes; Respondent: County Government of Uasin Gishu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Judicial Review E013 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Judicial Review / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Leave granted to file substantive motion for mandamus within 10 days.
- Judges
- RN Nyakundi
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Mandamus, Extension of Time, Government Liability
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
James Kipkorir Kaino
Applicant
Francis Kipruto Barkoiyes
Applicant
County Government of Uasin Gishu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Judicial Review / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should extend time for filing judicial review proceedings for an order of mandamus beyond the statutory six months period.
- 2 Whether leave should be granted to the applicants to apply for judicial review for an order of mandamus against the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the delay in bringing the application for judicial review was satisfactorily explained by the applicants, as it was occasioned by the respondent's conduct in filing but failing to prosecute an application for stay of execution and subsequently ignoring correspondence regarding payment. The court held that the applicants acted without unreasonable delay once it became clear that the respondent would not satisfy the judgment. Given these circumstances, the court exercised its discretion to extend the time for filing judicial review proceedings and granted leave to the applicants to seek an order of mandamus against the respondent. The applicants were thus permitted to...
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Leave granted to file substantive motion for mandamus within 10 days.
Orders
- Leave is granted for the applicants to file a substantive motion within 10 days from 7th July 2025.
- The substantive motion to be served and heard on 21st July 2025.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Kaino & another v County Government of Uasin Gishu (Miscellaneous Judicial Review E013 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 10256 (KLR) (16 July 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 10256 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Eldoret
Miscellaneous Judicial Review E013 of 2025
RN Nyakundi, J
July 16, 2025
Between
James Kipkorir Kaino
1st Applicant
Francis Kipruto Barkoiyes
2nd Applicant
and
The County Government of Uasin Gishu
Respondent
Ruling
1. What is pending before this Court for determination are Ex-parte Chamber Summons dated 24th June 2025 where the Applicants are seeking the following orders:a.Spentb.That this honorable court be pleased to extend time for filing of these judicial review proceedings for an order of mandamus beyond the statutory time of six monthsc.That this honorable court be pleased to grant leave to the ex parte applicants to apply for judicial review for an order of mandamusd.The costs of this application be borne by the Respondents.
2. The Application is grounded upon the matters set out in the Statutory Statement and Affidavit of James Kipkorir Kaino who avers as follows:a.That I have the authority of the 2nd Applicant herein to plead and depone, hence competent to swear this affidavit.b.That we sued Chebororwa ATC and the Honorable Attorney General for defamation and obtained judgment in our favor.c.That through our advocates, we served the 1st Respondent with a copy of the decree and certificate of costs for satisfaction.d.That instead of making the necessary payments, the 1st Respondent filed an application to stay execution of the decree and later failed to prosecute the same. The application was later dismissed for want of prosecution.e.That the respondent being a government body, we instructed our advocates on record to write to them to pay, so as to avoid further costs. After receiving the letter, the Respondent has been evasive, necessitating these proceedings.f.That the delay to bring these proceedings for an order of mandamus have been occasioned by the application made by the Respondent, and further their failure to honor correspondences by our advocates for the Respondent to pay.g.That this application has been brought timely without unreasonable delay.h.That we have a right in law to enjoy the fruits of our judgment, which being against a government body, leave to initiate judicial review proceedings is necessary.i.That I swear this affidavit in support of the application for extension of time and for leave to apply for judicial review orders of mandamus; and to verify the correctness of the facts relied upon and the grounds and other matters set out in the Statutory Statement lodged herewith.
Decision 3. On consideration of the Ex Parte Chamber Summons dated 24th June 2025, leave be and is hereby granted from this court for the Applicants to file a substantive motion within 10 days from todays’ date which was on 7th July 2025.
4. The substantive motion be served and be heard on 21st of July 2025.
5. That the applicant be here at liberty to seek the prerogative writ of mandamus.
6. It is so ordered
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF THIS COURT ON THIS 16TH JULY 2025……………………………R. NYAKUNDIJUDGE