[2016] KEHC 4556 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants had established a prima facie case for the grant of interim stay orders. The applicants demonstrated that they operate lawful businesses and that the respondents' threatened closure of their businesses without affording them a hearing would violate the principles of natural...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 4556 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mary Wambui Kabiru; Applicant: Francis Mwangi Kimani; Applicant: John Gichoya Gitonga; Respondent: Ministry of Interior & Co-ordination of National Government; Respondent: Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Murang'a
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 3 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Interim Stay Pending Substantive Motion
- Outcome
- Interim stay granted pending determination of substantive judicial review application.
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Natural Justice, Interim Orders, Stay of Administrative Action
- 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
Mary Wambui Kabiru
Applicant
Francis Mwangi Kimani
Applicant
John Gichoya Gitonga
Applicant
Ministry of Interior & Co-ordination of National Government
Respondent
Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Interim Stay Pending Substantive Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to interim stay orders pending determination of the substantive judicial review application.
- 2 Whether the respondents' actions to close the applicants' businesses without a hearing violate principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants had established a prima facie case for the grant of interim stay orders. The applicants demonstrated that they operate lawful businesses and that the respondents' threatened closure of their businesses without affording them a hearing would violate the principles of natural justice. In the absence of any opposition or response from the respondents, and to prevent possible irreparable harm to the applicants' businesses, the court exercised its discretion to allow the prayer for interim stay. The leave granted to apply for judicial review would operate as a stay of the respondents' complained-of actions pending the hearing and determination of the...
Court Disposition
Interim stay granted pending determination of substantive judicial review application.
Orders
- Leave granted on 11/05/2016 shall, pending disposal of Murang’a HC Judicial Review Cause No. 4 of 2016, act as a stay of the several acts of the respondents complained of in prayers 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the application.
- Costs shall be in the substantive motion.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MURANG’A
JUDICIAL REVIEW CAUSE NO 3 OF 2016
1. MARY WAMBUI KABIRU
2. FRANCIS MWANGI KIMANI
3. JOHN GICHOYA GITONGA……….…….….…………APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. MINISTRY OF INTERIOR &
CO-ORDINATION OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
2. ATTONEY GENERAL………………..…………..….RESPONDENTS
R U L I N G
1. On 11/05/2016 this court granted leave to the Applicants herein to apply for judicial review and seek orders of prohibition, mandamus and certiorari. The court directed that the prayer that the leave so granted do operate act as a stay pending disposal of the substantive application be canvassed inter partes on 07/06/2016. The Respondents were duly served, but come 07/06/2016, there was no appearance for them, and none of them filed any papers in response.
2. I have perused the statement of facts and verifying affidavit filed together with the chamber summons for leave. I have also considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Applicants. Counsel also informed the court that the substantive notice of motion for judicial review was filed on 03/06/2016 vide Murang’a HC Judicial Review Cause No 4 of 2016.
3. The Applicant’s position is that they are running lawful businesses of selling a lawful product (molasses, among others). They argue that the possibility of molasses being used to manufacture illicit brews is beyond their control as they have no control over what the customers who buy the molasses do with them. They point out that there are many other lawful and legitimate use that the molasses can be put into – for instance in cattle feed.
4. The Appellants also argue that they have invested heavily in their businesses. Yet the Respondents seek to close them without according to them the basic natural right of being heard before being condemned.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the Applicants, and there being no opposition from the Respondents, I will allow prayer 6 of the chamber summons dated 08/04/2016. The leave granted on 11/05/2016 shall, pending disposal of Murang’a HC Judicial Review Cause No. 4 of 2016, act as a stay of the several acts of the Respondents complained of in prayers 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the application. It is so ordered. Costs shall be in the substantive motion.
DATED AND SIGNED AT MURANG’A ON THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2016
H P G WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT MURANG’A THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2016