[2024] KEHC 2897 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 2897 (KLR)

The court found that there was an error apparent on the face of the record regarding the date of filing of the substantive application for mandamus. The application was actually filed and paid for on 25th November 2022, within the required 21 days after leave was granted, but the date stamp on the application...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 2897 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Chief Officer Finance Kisumu County Government; Respondent: Chief Officer – Medical Services Kisumu County Government; Respondent: County Secretary Kisumu County Government; Respondent: Health Administrative Officer Jaramogi Oginga Odinga Teaching & Referral Hospital; Applicant: Livingstone Malango Masinde (Suing as guardian and next friend to Eileen Ondeche Malango)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review Application 23 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Striking Out Order
Outcome
Application for review allowed; previous order striking out application set aside; substantive application reinstated for hearing.
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Mandamus, Review of Orders, Procedural Timelines
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Judicial Review Mandamus Review of Orders Procedural Timelines

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Chief Officer Finance Kisumu County Government

Respondent

Chief Officer – Medical Services Kisumu County Government

Respondent

County Secretary Kisumu County Government

Respondent

Health Administrative Officer Jaramogi Oginga Odinga Teaching & Referral Hospital

Respondent

Livingstone Malango Masinde (Suing as guardian and next friend to Eileen Ondeche Malango)

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Striking Out Order

  1. 1 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record regarding the filing date of the substantive application for mandamus.
  2. 2 Whether the court should review and set aside its previous order striking out the application for being filed out of time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was an error apparent on the face of the record regarding the date of filing of the substantive application for mandamus. The application was actually filed and paid for on 25th November 2022, within the required 21 days after leave was granted, but the date stamp on the application reflected the hearing date, leading to the mistaken belief that the application was filed out of time. To correct this error and prevent injustice to the applicant, the court exercised its power of review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, set aside the previous order striking out the application, and reinstated the application for...

Court Disposition

Application for review allowed; previous order striking out application set aside; substantive application reinstated for hearing.

Orders

  • The judgment of 22nd January 2024 striking out the application dated 21st November 2022 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The application dated 21st November 2022 is reinstated for consideration on merit.