[2025] KEHC 413 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 413 (KLR)

The court declined to certify the application as urgent because no interim orders were sought and no urgency was demonstrated in the application or supporting affidavit. The court emphasized that urgency must be established by clear averments or evidence of imminent harm or exceptional circumstances. In the absence...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 413 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Nicholas Alexander Nesbitt; Respondent: The Director Of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: The Directorate Of Criminal Investigations
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review Application E014 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Certification of Urgency and Directions for Service
Outcome
Application for certification as urgent declined; directions for service and filing given.
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Judicial Review Procedure, Certification of Urgency, Service of Process
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Judicial Review Procedure Certification of Urgency Service of Process

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Alexander Nesbitt

Applicant

The Director Of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

The Directorate Of Criminal Investigations

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Certification of Urgency and Directions for Service

  1. 1 Whether the application should be certified as urgent.
  2. 2 What directions should be given regarding service and filing of responses.

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to certify the application as urgent because no interim orders were sought and no urgency was demonstrated in the application or supporting affidavit. The court emphasized that urgency must be established by clear averments or evidence of imminent harm or exceptional circumstances. In the absence of such, the matter should proceed in the ordinary course. The court then issued directions for prompt service of the originating motion on the respondents, timelines for filing responses and further affidavits, and set a mention date to confirm compliance and fix a judgment date. The ruling underscores the procedural fairness required in judicial review proceedings and the...

Court Disposition

Application for certification as urgent declined; directions for service and filing given.

Orders

  • Application not certified as urgent.
  • Applicant to serve originating motion on respondents within 5 days.