[2020] KEHC 4488 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 4488 (KLR)

The court found that its earlier directions were made without knowledge of the 2nd Respondent's Notice of Preliminary Objection due to logistical or technological challenges. The emergence of this new evidence constituted sufficient reason to review and vary the previous directions under Section 80 of the Civil...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 4488 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Attorney General; Respondent: Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority; Applicant: Hon. Jude Njomo and Anthony Kuria (Suing as Officials of KENAPEDE ASSOCIATION)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review Application 72 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Application to Vary Directions and Hear Preliminary Objection First
Outcome
Application allowed; previous directions reviewed and varied.
Judges
P Nyamweya
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Preliminary Objection, Right to Fair Hearing, Electronic Filing Procedure
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Review of Court Orders Preliminary Objection Right to Fair Hearing Electronic Filing Procedure

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent

Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority

Respondent

Hon. Jude Njomo and Anthony Kuria (Suing as Officials of KENAPEDE ASSOCIATION)

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Application to Vary Directions and Hear Preliminary Objection First

  1. 1 Whether the court should review and vary its previous directions to allow the preliminary objection to be heard before the substantive motion.
  2. 2 Whether failure to consider the 2nd Respondent's preliminary objection violated the right to a fair hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that its earlier directions were made without knowledge of the 2nd Respondent's Notice of Preliminary Objection due to logistical or technological challenges. The emergence of this new evidence constituted sufficient reason to review and vary the previous directions under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court held that the preliminary objection, which challenges the court's jurisdiction and could potentially dispose of the entire matter, must be heard first to uphold the right to a fair hearing as enshrined in Article 50 of the Constitution. Consequently, the court ordered that the preliminary objection be heard...

Court Disposition

Application allowed; previous directions reviewed and varied.

Orders

  • The 2nd Respondent’s Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 8th June 2020 shall be heard first, before the ex parte Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 15th May 2020.
  • The 2nd Respondent shall file and serve the ex parte Applicants with its submissions on the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 8th June 2020, together with a copy of this ruling and a mention notice within fourteen (14) days.