[2006] KEHC 1432 (KLR)
The court found that the ex parte applicant's verifying affidavit was deficient as it failed to annex the decision of the Ileho Land Disputes Tribunal or the relevant proceedings. Without such evidence, the court could not grant the order of certiorari. The absence of these documents meant there was no basis upon...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 1432 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Patrick Muleshi Ingati; Interested Party: Rhodah C. Chendekha; Respondent: The Chairman, Ileho Land Disputes Tribunal
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 79 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Certiorari
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Certiorari, Right to Be Heard, Tribunal Decisions
- 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 Muleshi Ingati
Applicant
Rhodah C. Chendekha
Interested Party
The Chairman, Ileho Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Certiorari
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the absence of the tribunal decision and proceedings in the verifying affidavit renders the application for certiorari fatally defective.
- 2 Whether the ex parte applicant was denied the right to be heard by the tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the ex parte applicant's verifying affidavit was deficient as it failed to annex the decision of the Ileho Land Disputes Tribunal or the relevant proceedings. Without such evidence, the court could not grant the order of certiorari. The absence of these documents meant there was no basis upon which the court could assess the alleged denial of the right to be heard or the propriety of the tribunal's decision. Consequently, the application was dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 23-11-05 is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KAKAMEGA Civil Misc Appli 79 of 2005
REPUBLIC ...............................................................................................PLAINTIFF
V E R S U S
RHODAH C. CHENDEKHA ..........................................................INTERESTED PARTY
A N D
THE CHAIRMAN, ILEHO LAND DISPUTES TRUBUNAL .........................RESPONDENT
RULING
The exparte applicant, Patrick Muleshi Ingati, applied in his Notice of Motion dated 23-11-05 for an order of CERTIORARI to bring into this court for quashing the decision of ILEHO LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL which had been filed in the Kakamega Chief Magistrate’s court Misc. Award No. 115 of 2005 for adoption as a judgement of the court.
The verifying affidavit sworn on 24-10-05 by the exparte applicant did not annexe the decision sought to be quashed or the proceedings of the Ileho Land Disputes Tribunal which were alleged to have been conducted in absence of the exparte applicant who claimed that he was denied the right to be heard. The verifying affidavit is deficient of vital evidence and the order sought cannot be granted in absence of such evidence.
I have carefully perused the application and the affidavits and considered the submissions of counsel and it is my finding that there is no evidence to support the Notice of Motion and therefore the orders sought cannot be granted.
The Notice of Motion dated 23-11-05 if hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kakamega this 8th day of June, 2006
G. B. M. KARIUKI
J U D G E