[2014] KEHC 7630 (KLR)
The court determined that for the proper and orderly conduct of court business, the file should be returned to the Judicial Review Division, which is the appropriate forum for hearing and determining outstanding applications in judicial review matters. The court emphasized that undue movement of files between...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 7630 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stanley Mbiuki; Respondent: Director of Land Adjudication; Respondent: Muratha Micheu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Suit 37 of 1984
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Directions on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- file transferred to judicial review division; costs in the cause
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Certiorari, Mandamus, Land Adjudication, Stay of Orders
- 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
Stanley Mbiuki
Applicant
Director of Land Adjudication
Respondent
Muratha Micheu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Directions on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for stay of the order dated 23rd February 2011 should be heard in the current division or transferred to the Judicial Review Division.
- 2 Whether proper court procedure requires the matter to be dealt with in the appropriate division.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that for the proper and orderly conduct of court business, the file should be returned to the Judicial Review Division, which is the appropriate forum for hearing and determining outstanding applications in judicial review matters. The court emphasized that undue movement of files between divisions may cause mischief or delay, and thus, adherence to proper court procedure and division allocation is necessary. The application for stay was not substantively determined, but the direction was given to ensure the matter is handled in the correct division.
Court Disposition
file transferred to judicial review division; costs in the cause
Orders
- This file be returned to the Judicial Review Division where it belongs for outstanding applications/matters to be dealt with there.
- Costs will be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL DIVISION
MISC CIVIL SUIT NO 37 OF 1984 (O.S.)
IN THE MATTER OF THE LAND CONSOLIDATION ACT, CAP 283 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR ORDERS OF CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
(EX PARTESTANLEY MBIUKI)………………….................APPLICANT
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF LAND ADJUDICATION
MURATHA MICHEU...........................................RESPONDENTS
D I R E C T I O N S
1. This is a judicial review matter. On 16th February 1984 the Ex ParteApplicant herein was granted leave to apply for judicial review. The learned judge in granting leave also directed that the leave do act as a stay of the orders/actions sought to be challenged. The dispute concerned some parcels of land.
2. The Ex Parte Applicant then filed the necessary substantive application by notice of motion dated 8th March 1984. The notice of motion remained unprosecuted for some 25 years. Upon application by the 2nd Respondent the court in a considered ruling dated and delivered on 23rd February 2011 (Mbogholi Msagha, J) vacated the order for the leave to act as a stay. He then urged the parties to proceed towards hearing and determination of the substantive judicial review application.
3. The Ex Parte Applicant then filed the notice of motion dated 22nd March 2011 which is now pending disposal. The application seeks the main order that the aforesaid order of 23rd February 2011 be stayed pending hearing and determination of an intended appealagainst the order.
4. I note that the parties filed written submissions which they high-lighted on 8th October 2013 before me when the entire court record was then not before me. The complete court record was not made available to me until 16th January 2014, and I was then able to peruse it.
5. The application at hand is a very simple one indeed; but for the proper and orderly conduct of court business, matters ought to be dealt with in the proper divisions of the court. Undue movement of court files between divisions may lead to mischief or undue delay.
6. In the circumstances I direct that this file be returned to the Judicial Review Division where it belongs for outstanding applications/matters to be dealt with there. It is so ordered. Costs will be in the cause.
DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014
H.P.G. WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED THIS 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014.