[2012] KEHC 5550 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 5550 (KLR)

The court found the Petition incompetent for failure to comply with the procedural requirement that a Petition be supported by an affidavit containing relevant facts and evidence. Despite this, the court addressed the substantive issues and determined that the Respondents, particularly the Minister, had initially acted ultra vires but promptly rectified the error before any unilateral appointment or gazettement occurred. There was no failure to observe due process or breach of Article 47 of the Constitution. The orders sought for Mandamus, Prohibition, and Injunction were therefore premature and unwarranted. The matter being of public interest, each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Citation
[2012] KEHC 5550 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Centre of Human Rights and Democracy; Respondent: Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital Board; Respondent: Minister of Medical Services Hon. Anyang Nyong'o; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
27 September 2012
Case Number
Petition 8 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed as incompetent and premature; no orders granted.
Legal Topics
Fair Administrative Action, Public Appointments, Judicial Review, Ultra Vires Actions
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Fair Administrative Action Public Appointments Judicial Review Ultra Vires Actions

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Centre of Human Rights and Democracy

Applicant

Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital Board

Respondent

Minister of Medical Services Hon. Anyang Nyong'o

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Petition is competent in light of the requirements for supporting affidavits under the law.
  2. 2 Whether the administrative actions of the Respondents, particularly the Minister, were ultra vires and unconstitutional.
  3. 3 Whether the Petitioner is entitled to orders of Mandamus, Prohibition, or Injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the Petition incompetent for failure to comply with the procedural requirement that a Petition be supported by an affidavit containing relevant facts and evidence. Despite this, the court addressed the substantive issues and determined that the Respondents, particularly the Minister, had initially acted ultra vires but promptly rectified the error before any unilateral appointment or gazettement occurred. There was no failure to observe due process or breach of Article 47 of the Constitution. The orders sought for Mandamus, Prohibition, and Injunction were therefore premature and unwarranted. The matter being of public interest, each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed as incompetent and premature; no orders granted.

Orders

  • The Petition seeking orders of Mandamus and Prohibition is dismissed.
  • The Petition is found to be premature as the administrative actions complained of had not yet taken place.