[2000] KEHC 254 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient urgency to justify the grant of a certificate of urgency. The judge emphasized that urgency must be shown by evidence that immediate intervention is necessary to avert injustice, and that the applicant must act promptly. In this case, the matter...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KEHC 254 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Nassor Hadi Fish Dealers; Defendant: Municipal Council of Malindi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 605 of ??
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Certificate of Urgency
- Outcome
- application for certificate of urgency refused
- Judges
- AI Hayanga
- Legal Topics
- Certificate of Urgency, Judicial Discretion, Urgent Applications
- 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
Nassor Hadi Fish Dealers
Plaintiff
Municipal Council of Malindi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Certificate of Urgency
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient urgency to warrant the grant of a certificate of urgency.
- 2 Whether the applicant acted promptly in seeking urgent relief.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient urgency to justify the grant of a certificate of urgency. The judge emphasized that urgency must be shown by evidence that immediate intervention is necessary to avert injustice, and that the applicant must act promptly. In this case, the matter complained of had already occurred, and the applicant did not make the application at the earliest opportunity. The court found no basis to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant and refused the application for a certificate of urgency.
Court Disposition
application for certificate of urgency refused
Orders
- The application for a certificate of urgency is refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CIVIL SUIT NO.605 OF 2000
NASSOR HADI FISH DEALERS ………………………………………… PLAINTIFF
versus
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF MALINDI ………………………………... DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
Certificate of Urgency is still anamorphous jurisdiction. It does not have well defined rules of guidance although it is discretionary, but discretion must be gauged against certain principles. I believe the applicant must show that there is an urgency in the matter that calls for quick remedy to avert injustice. It must show that if it travels the normal procedural cause he will suffer injustice. The applicant should also be able to show that he has taken the earliest opportunity to make his application so that the indolent the negligent and the opportunist is not aided. Above all, the applicant should usually show that because of any of all of these reasons his case cannot be left to travel the normal tread of the mill.
In this case the applicant wants to apply for urgent hearing complaining of a matter that has already occurred. If the Notice objected to spelt doom, to the applicant, he should have made the application at the earliest opportunity. I am unable to exercise my discretion to grant certificate and the application is refused.
Dated this 11th Day of December, 2000.
A.I. HAYANGA
JUDGE