[2020] KEHC 2310 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 2310 (KLR)

The court held that the interim applications for injunctions and to vary or set aside the stay orders were not capable of determining the substantive dispute and would only serve to delay the expeditious hearing of the substantive judicial review application. The court had already exercised its discretion regarding...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 2310 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenya Pharmaceutical Association; Applicant: Patrick Oduor Adera; Applicant: Peter Atandi Mogere; Respondent: Chitechi Amboka; Respondent: Williamson Chumba; Respondent: Joel Chege; Respondent: Fredrick Kiio
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review Application E052 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Preliminary Applications
Outcome
Both preliminary applications struck out; matter to proceed to substantive hearing; no order as to costs.
Judges
P Nyamweya
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Status Quo Orders, Association Governance, Interlocutory Injunctions
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Status Quo Orders Association Governance Interlocutory Injunctions

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Pharmaceutical Association

Applicant

Patrick Oduor Adera

Applicant

Peter Atandi Mogere

Applicant

Chitechi Amboka

Respondent

Williamson Chumba

Respondent

Joel Chege

Respondent

Fredrick Kiio

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Preliminary Applications

  1. 1 Whether the interim orders sought in the two applications should be granted pending the substantive hearing of the judicial review.
  2. 2 Whether the status quo as ordered by the court on 17th August 2020 should be maintained.
  3. 3 Whether the applications raise substantive issues that can be determined at this interlocutory stage.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the interim applications for injunctions and to vary or set aside the stay orders were not capable of determining the substantive dispute and would only serve to delay the expeditious hearing of the substantive judicial review application. The court had already exercised its discretion regarding the status quo, which was to be maintained as it existed before the respondents' election or appointment. Any substantive legal issues should be raised as preliminary objections or in substantive responses, not through interlocutory applications. Consequently, both applications were struck out to allow the matter to proceed to substantive hearing without further delay.

Court Disposition

Both preliminary applications struck out; matter to proceed to substantive hearing; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The Notices of Motion dated 18th August 2020 and 25th August 2020 are struck out.
  • No order as to costs.