[2025] KEHC 1006 (KLR)

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2025] KEHC 1006 (KLR)
Parties: Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Baringo County Government; Respondent: The County Secretary, Baringo County; Respondent: Chief Officer, Finance/County Treasurer, Baringo County; Applicant: KTK Advocates
Court: High Court
Court Station: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction: Kenya
Case Number: Judicial Review Application 687 of 2017
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Admissibility of Replying Affidavit
Outcome: Replying affidavit struck out; applicant to proceed with application.
Judges: RE Aburili
Legal Topics: Affidavit Filing, Representation of Parties, Timelines and Extensions
Source Language: en

Civil Procedure Affidavit Filing Representation of Parties Timelines and Extensions

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

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Baringo County Government

Respondent

The County Secretary, Baringo County

Respondent

Chief Officer, Finance/County Treasurer, Baringo County

Respondent

KTK Advocates

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Admissibility of Replying Affidavit

Legal Issues

1 Whether the replying affidavit filed by a law firm not properly on record should be admitted.
2 Whether the replying affidavit was filed and served within the court-ordered timelines.
3 Whether the court should enlarge time for filing the replying affidavit contrary to its previous directions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the replying affidavit was filed out of time, contrary to explicit court directions that no enlargement of time would be granted. Furthermore, the affidavit was filed by a law firm not properly on record, as there was no consent from the previous law firm or leave of court as required by the Civil Procedure Rules. The court held that these procedural breaches were fatal and struck out the replying affidavit. The applicant was allowed to proceed with the application without the respondents' late response.

Court Disposition

Replying affidavit struck out; applicant to proceed with application.

Orders

The replying affidavit sworn on 24/2/2025 by Jacob Kurui Chepkwony is struck out.
The applicant is allowed to proceed and address the court on his application dated 5/7/2024.

Full Case Text

Judgment text and source record

32 paragraphs

Republic v Baringo County Government & 2 others; KTK Advocates (Exparte) (Judicial Review Application 687 of 2017) [2025] KEHC 1006 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (5 March 2025) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 1006 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Judicial Review

Judicial Review Application 687 of 2017

RE Aburili, J

March 5, 2025

Between

Republic

Applicant

and

Baringo County Government

1st Respondent

The County Secretary, Baringo County

2nd Respondent

Chief Officer, Finance/County Treasurer, Baringo County

3rd Respondent

and

KTK Advocates

Exparte

Ruling

1. It is now 10. 53 am. The matter was called out at 9. 15 am and placed aside in the presence of Mr. Ogola Advocate who informed the court that he had filed and served a Replying affidavit on 27/2/2025.

2. The court record shows that the affidavit in reply was filed on 4/3/2025 at 12. 35 pm. Obviously, Mr. Ogola was lying to this court.

3. Additionally, Ms. Olili who has now appeared holding brief for Mr. Ogola cannot explain the filing of the replying affidavit after alleged service upon the applicant, when the directions of the court on 17/2/2025 are clear that the affidavit be filed and served within 5 days of 17/2/2025 and in default, there shall be no enlargement of time.

4. Further, Mr. Kipkorir has brought to the attention of the court the fact that the law firm that filed the Replying affidavit is not the law firm that is on record and that fact is not controverted.

5. Instead, Ms. Olili owns up and concedes that there was no consent from the previous law firm to the present law firm filed in court to take over the conduct of the matter on behalf of the Respondent, since judgment in this matter was delivered over 8 years ago.

6. That being the case, the Replying affidavit sworn by Jacob Kurui Chepkwony on 24/2/2025, apart from being filed out of time without leave of court, and even if the court was to allow the said affidavit to be deemed to be duly filed, regrettably, it is filed by a law firm which is not on record acting for the Respondent.

7. Consequently, the Replying affidavit sworn on 24/2/2025 by Jacob Kurui Chepkwony is hereby struck out.

8. The applicant is allowed to proceed and address the court on his application dated 5/7/2024.

9. I so order.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025R.E. ABURILIJUDGE

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.