[2000] KEHC 517 (KLR)

[2000] KEHC 517 (KLR)

The court found that although the applicants may have been deprived of their property without due process and the respondents acted hastily and without proper inquiry into ownership, the remedies sought were not available in the circumstances. The order of prohibition could not be granted as the act complained of had already occurred before the application was filed, making the remedy unavailable. Certiorari could not be issued as there was no clear record of a decision or proceedings to quash, and the cattle had already been handed over, making enforcement impossible. Mandamus was also unavailable as it was unclear whether the cattle still existed. The court held that it would not make...

Citation
[2000] KEHC 517 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mohamed Abdi & 4 Others; Respondent: Minister Office of the President & 2 Others
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
10 February 2000
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 29 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judicial Review
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Prohibition and Certiorari, Natural Justice, Administrative Action, Property Deprivation, Cattle Rustling
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Land and Property Judicial Review Prohibition and Certiorari Natural Justice Administrative Action Property Deprivation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed Abdi & 4 Others

Applicant

Minister Office of the President & 2 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents acted ultra vires or in breach of natural justice in seizing and handing over the applicants' cattle to the Samburu community.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were deprived of property without due process of law.
  3. 3 Whether the remedies of prohibition, certiorari, or mandamus were available in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the applicants may have been deprived of their property without due process and the respondents acted hastily and without proper inquiry into ownership, the remedies sought were not available in the circumstances. The order of prohibition could not be granted as the act complained of had already occurred before the application was filed, making the remedy unavailable. Certiorari could not be issued as there was no clear record of a decision or proceedings to quash, and the cattle had already been handed over, making enforcement impossible. Mandamus was also unavailable as it was unclear whether the cattle still existed. The court held that it would not make...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Each party to bear their own costs of the application.