[2025] KEHC 1349 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 1349 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to file and serve the substantive judicial review application within the period stipulated by the court when granting leave. As a result, the leave granted lapsed, and there were no valid proceedings pending before the court. The notice of motion on record was filed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 1349 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Haren Kumar Mandavia; Respondent: Inspector General of Police; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: Director of Criminal Investigations; Respondent: Jacinta Atieli; Respondent: Mohamed Imran alias Rizwan; Respondent: Joris Watt; Respondent: Patnet Steel Makers Manufacturers Limited; Respondent: Patrick Muraya; Respondent: Kanyi Ndurumo – Advocate; Interested Party: Prime Cladding Product Limited; Interested Party: Pafro Impex Trading Limited; Interested Party: Pafro Minerals & Allied Industries Limited; Interested Party: KMQ Timber Limited; Interested Party: Polestar Machandising (K) Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review Application E153 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Closure for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
file closed for want of prosecution due to lapse of leave and non-filing of substantive application
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Judicial Review Leave, Lapse of Leave, Failure to File Substantive Motion
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Judicial Review Leave Lapse of Leave Failure to File Substantive Motion

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Haren Kumar Mandavia

Applicant

Inspector General of Police

Respondent

The Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Director of Criminal Investigations

Respondent

Jacinta Atieli

Respondent

Mohamed Imran alias Rizwan

Respondent

Joris Watt

Respondent

Patnet Steel Makers Manufacturers Limited

Respondent

Patrick Muraya

Respondent

Kanyi Ndurumo – Advocate

Respondent

Prime Cladding Product Limited

Interested Party

Pafro Impex Trading Limited

Interested Party

Pafro Minerals & Allied Industries Limited

Interested Party

KMQ Timber Limited

Interested Party

Polestar Machandising (K) Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Closure for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant complied with the court's direction to file and serve the substantive judicial review application within the stipulated period.
  2. 2 Whether the leave granted to apply for judicial review orders lapsed due to non-compliance.
  3. 3 Whether any proceedings remain pending before the court for determination.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to file and serve the substantive judicial review application within the period stipulated by the court when granting leave. As a result, the leave granted lapsed, and there were no valid proceedings pending before the court. The notice of motion on record was filed simultaneously with the chamber summons for leave but was never paid for, further confirming non-compliance. Consequently, the court ordered the closure of the file as there was nothing left for determination.

Court Disposition

file closed for want of prosecution due to lapse of leave and non-filing of substantive application

Orders

  • The file is closed as there are no proceedings pending before the court.
  • This ruling to be typed and uploaded.