[2018] KEHC 7301 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 7301 (KLR)

The court found that the doctrines of res judicata and res sub judice did not bar the petition, as the lower court had not determined the constitutionality of the impugned directive and was not competent to do so. On the substantive issues, the court held that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate any breach of its economic and social rights under Article 43, as the directive did not prohibit its economic activities. The Petitioner also failed to establish a violation of consumer rights under Article 46, as it brought the suit on its own behalf and no consumer had complained. Regarding fair administrative action, the court found that the Petitioner was represented in the meetings and...

Citation
[2018] KEHC 7301 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Munawar Shuttle Limited; Respondent: County Government of Kilifi; Respondent: Al Wahim Express Shuttle Company Ltd; Respondent: 001 Investment
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
19 April 2018
Case Number
Constitutional Petition 6 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Fair Administrative Action, Economic and Social Rights, Consumer Rights, Res Judicata, Public Transport Regulation, County Government Powers
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Fair Administrative Action Economic and Social Rights Consumer Rights Res Judicata Public Transport Regulation +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Munawar Shuttle Limited

Applicant

County Government of Kilifi

Respondent

Al Wahim Express Shuttle Company Ltd

Respondent

001 Investment

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the petition in light of res judicata and res sub judice doctrines.
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Respondent's directive dated 9th March, 2017 breached the Petitioner's rights under Articles 43, 46, and 47 of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the impugned directive was issued in violation of fair administrative action requirements under Article 47 and the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the doctrines of res judicata and res sub judice did not bar the petition, as the lower court had not determined the constitutionality of the impugned directive and was not competent to do so. On the substantive issues, the court held that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate any breach of its economic and social rights under Article 43, as the directive did not prohibit its economic activities. The Petitioner also failed to establish a violation of consumer rights under Article 46, as it brought the suit on its own behalf and no consumer had complained. Regarding fair administrative action, the court found that the Petitioner was represented in the meetings and...

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • The Petition is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.