https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11878
The 1st respondent filed its application outside the time ordered by the court and on the eve of the hearing without any explanation for the delay. The court found this to be a deliberate attempt to delay the petition, abhorred the conduct, and struck out the application while preserving the petition for hearing.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 11878 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Shadrack Sharu Muyesu; 1st Respondent: Kenya Power & Lighting Company; 2nd Respondent: Kenya Electricity Transmission Company; 3rd Respondent: Energy & Petroleum Regulatory Authority; 4th Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition E005 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition for Enforcement of the Bill of Rights / Ruling on an Interlocutory Application; Application Struck Out and Petition Fixed for Hearing
- Outcome
- Application dated 29.7.2026 struck out; no order as to costs; petition set down for hearing
- Judges
- ["PJO Otieno"]
- Legal Topics
- Delay in Filing, Striking Out Application, Timeliness of Proceedings, Discretion to Sanction Conduct of Counsel, Proceedings Without Stay Pending Appeal
- 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
Shadrack Sharu Muyesu
Petitioner
Kenya Power & Lighting Company
1st Respondent
Kenya Electricity Transmission Company
2nd Respondent
Energy & Petroleum Regulatory Authority
3rd Respondent
The Hon. Attorney General
4th Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition for Enforcement of the Bill of Rights / Ruling on an Interlocutory Application; Application Struck Out and Petition Fixed for Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st respondent's application filed on the eve of the hearing and outside the time set by court should be entertained
- 2 Whether the delay in filing was inordinate and designed to frustrate hearing of the petition
- 3 Whether the court should impose a sanction by striking out the application
Ratio Decidendi
The 1st respondent filed its application outside the time ordered by the court and on the eve of the hearing without any explanation for the delay. The court found this to be a deliberate attempt to delay the petition, abhorred the conduct, and struck out the application while preserving the petition for hearing.
Court Disposition
Application dated 29.7.2026 struck out; no order as to costs; petition set down for hearing
Orders
- The application dated 29.7.2026 is struck out.
- No order as to costs on the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA.** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT LODWAR.** **CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION** **PETITION NO. E005 OF 2024.** **SHADRACK SHARU MUYESU.......................................................PETITIONER** **VERSUS.** **KENYA POWER & LIGHTING COMPANY.................................1ST RESPONDENT** **KENYA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION COMPANY...................2ND RESPONDENT** **ENERGY & PETROLEUM REGULATORY AUTHORITY.................3RD RESPONDENT** **THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL..............................................4TH RESPONDENT** **RULING.** 1. This is a petition for enforcement of the bill of rights. For the sake of accountability of the Judiciary to the Public, Litigation of this nature have a time within which one ought to be concluded. That period has long passed. 2. The court understands that a substantial portion of the petition has been disposed of by the decision rendered by the 3rd Respondent and made after reference by the court. 3. The court equally appreciates that there is an appeal before the High Court on that decision. However, there is no stay of proceedings on this matter. 4. With that history in mind, the court views the conduct of Mr. Maanzo’s client in filing the application well outside the time set by court and on the eve of today’s date to be a deliberate design to forestall the hearing today and delay the conclusion of the Petition. That the court abhors. 5. Secondly, no reason has been advanced at all by Mr. Maanzo to justify his delay and the reasons for such delays which the court considers inordinate. 1. For the two reasons the court considers the conduct by the 1st defendant to be a deliberate design at delay to make the court fail in its obligation to the citizen. It is an abdication of duty by the counsel and the court has to show disapproval. The court shows its disapproval by striking out the application dated 29.7.2026. The court makes no orders as to costs on the application. 2. To progress the Petition forward, the same is fixed for hearing on 8.10.2026. 3. Parties have the liberty to file any additional documents they may desire to file. The filing be done within 30 days from today. **Dated, Signed and Delivered at Lodwar** this **30**th **day of** July**, 2026.** **Patrick J.O. Otieno** **Judge**