[2013] KEHC 3846 (KLR)
The court found that the participation of NACADA as an interested party would not prejudice the ex parte applicant and would assist the court in fully appreciating the statutory issues at play. The court relied on Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which empowers it to add parties necessary for the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 3846 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Patrick Mbogo Wahome; Respondent: Mathira West District Alcoholic Drinks Regulatory Committee; Applicant: National Campaign Against Drug Abuse Authority (NACADA)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 43 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Application to Be Enjoined as Interested Party
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- J Wakiaga
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Parties, Judicial Review Procedure, Interested Party Enjoinder
- 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
Patrick Mbogo Wahome
Applicant
Mathira West District Alcoholic Drinks Regulatory Committee
Respondent
National Campaign Against Drug Abuse Authority (NACADA)
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Application to Be Enjoined as Interested Party
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should enjoin NACADA as an interested party to the judicial review proceedings.
- 2 What conditions must be satisfied for a party to be enjoined as an interested party in judicial review.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the participation of NACADA as an interested party would not prejudice the ex parte applicant and would assist the court in fully appreciating the statutory issues at play. The court relied on Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which empowers it to add parties necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the matter. The court also invoked Article 159(d) of the Constitution, emphasizing the need to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities. Consequently, the court allowed the application and ordered that NACADA be enjoined as an interested party, with no order as to costs.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- NACADA is added as an interested party to the suit.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Nyeri
Judicial Review 43 of 2011 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif]
PATRICK MBOGO WAHOME............................................APPLICANT
versus
MATHIRA WEST DISTRICT ALCOHOLIC
DRINKS REGULATORY COMMITTEE..........................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. By a notice of motion dated 29th February 2012 the applicant National Campaign Against Drug Abuse Authority (NACADA) (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) moved the court under section2 and 4 of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act and order 1 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure to be added as a party to these proceedings.
2. The application was supported by the affidavit of FLORINA MWIKALI MUTUA in which she deponed that it is in the interest of justice that the applicant be enjoined into the ongoing proceedings as an interested party to enable it avail its response to the application in so far as the implementation of the Act by the relevant implementing agency is concerned.
3. That participation of the applicant in the ongoing proceedings will enrich the courts appreciation of all the statutory matter as raised in the application.
4. The application was opposed by the exparte applicant on the basis that order 1 rule 10 is not applicable in judicial review application.
5. That the application is an abuse of the court process since the applicant can only be represented by the Hon. Attorney General
SUBMISSIONS
6. Mr. Chege for the applicant submitted that there is no prejudice that will be suffered by the exparte applicant and that the court should take judicial notice of the fact that there are many cases where the applicant has been enjoined as an interested party.
7. Mr. Wahome for the exparte applicant submitted that the applicant is already a party to the proceedings since he is a member of the District Committee and the secretary of the said committee.
ISSUE
8. There is only one issue for determination in this application and that is the conditions upon which the court can enjoin an interested party to a suit.
9. Order 1 rule 10 (2) provides as follow
The court may at any stage in the proceeding either upon or within the application of either party and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just order that the name of any party improperly joined whether as plaintiff or defendant be struck out and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined whether as plaintiff or defendant on whose presence before the court may be necessary in the order to enable the court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit be added.
10. I have also taken note that Article 159 (d) of the Constitution states that justice shall be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities.
11. At this stage of the proceedings I see no prejudice the exparte applicant will suffer if the applicant is enjoined as a party.
12. I therefore allow the application herein by adding the applicant as an interested party to this suit with no order as to cost.
Dated at Nyeri this 18th day of April 2013.
J. WAKIAGA
JUDGE
Mr. Njue for Miss Gathangu for the Respondent
Mr. Kimunya for Mr. Wahome Gikonyo for the applicant and Mr. Chege for the interested party.
Court: The ruling is delivered in open court in the presence of the above name.
J. WAKIAGA
JUDGE
[if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; text-autospace:ideograph-other; font-size:12. 0pt;"Liberation Serif","serif";} </style> <![endif]