[2001] KEHC 393 (KLR)
The court held that there is no legal requirement under Order LIII of the Civil Procedure Rules mandating that the statement of facts in a judicial review application must be signed personally by the applicant. The statement is a procedural document describing the parties, relief sought, and grounds, and there is no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KEHC 393 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kihara Waithaka; Applicant: Freddie Kisang Cheserek; Respondent: Central Bank of Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application 1065 of ??
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the applicants
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review Procedure, Signing of Statements, Role of Advocates, Preliminary Objection
- 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
Kihara Waithaka
Applicant
Freddie Kisang Cheserek
Applicant
Central Bank of Kenya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a statement of facts in a judicial review application must be signed personally by the applicant rather than by their advocate.
- 2 Whether failure to personally sign the statement of facts renders the application fatally defective.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that there is no legal requirement under Order LIII of the Civil Procedure Rules mandating that the statement of facts in a judicial review application must be signed personally by the applicant. The statement is a procedural document describing the parties, relief sought, and grounds, and there is no special rule requiring exclusive signature by the applicant. The verifying affidavit serves to confirm the truth of the statement. In the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, an advocate may sign court documents for filing. The court found no prejudice to the respondent arising from the advocate's signature and dismissed the preliminary objection as baseless.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the applicants
Orders
- The respondent's preliminary objection is dismissed.
- Costs of the objection are awarded to the applicants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
HIGH COURT MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1065 OF 2000
KIHARA WAITHAKA………………………………….1ST APPLICANT
FREDDIE KISANG CHESEREK…………………..…...2ND APPLICANT
V E R S U S
CENTRAL BANK OF KENYA…………………....……….RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The Applicants filed this application for Judicial Review with the usual statutory statement (of facts) which was signed by the Applicants’ Advocates. Mr. Ougo for the Respondent raised a preliminary objection to the application on the ground that the statement ought to have been signed by the Applicants and not their Advocate. In his view, every document must be signed by the person claiming it as his own except where the law allows otherwise. He gave an example of Order VI Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules as allowing Advocates or agents to sign pleadings on behalf of the parties. He argued that a statement of fact (which accompanies an application for judicial review) is not a pleading. On this ground, he sought to strike out the whole application.
The question raised by Mr. Ougo’s objection is whether an application for judicial review will be rendered fatal if the statement of facts accompanying it is not signed by the Applicant personally.
Although Mr. Ougo raised this question, he conceded that he had no authority on the point. I for my part agree with Mr. M’inoti for the Applicants that the objection has no basis. There is no requirement under Order LIII of the Civil Procedure Rules that a statement must be signed by the Applicant himself. The statement is nothing more than a description of the parties, a statement of the relief sought and the grounds on which it is based. There is nothing in the statement which would impose a special rule requiring that it must be signed exclusively by the Applicant himself. If that were so, what would be the need of the Verifying Affidavit meant to accompany the application? In my view, the position is that an Advocate may sign any court documents in a suit for filing unless there is a specific provision that the same ought to be signed by the party himself. That aside, I do not see what possible prejudice the respondent has, or could have suffered because of this, nor can I see how the respondent is likely not to get a fair hearing on merit by reason only of the fact that the statement of facts has been signed by the Applicant’s advocates instead of the Applicant himself.
Accordingly, I dismiss Mr. Ougo’s preliminary objection with costs payable to the Applicant in any event.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 31st day of May, 2001.
ALNASHIR VISRAM
JUDGE.