[2014] KEHC 1637 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 1637 (KLR)

The court found that the ex parte applicants had failed to take any steps to prosecute their application since March 2012, despite being served with the application for dismissal and hearing notice. The court further held that the reliefs sought had been overtaken by events following the 2013 general elections,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 1637 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Constituency Development Fund; Respondent: Ben Francis Kebati; Respondent: Wilfred Sese
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisii
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application 79 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Application to dismiss the suit allowed; suit dismissed for want of prosecution; costs to the applicant.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Constituency Development Fund, Certiorari and Prohibition, Mandamus Relief, Abuse of Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Judicial Review Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Constituency Development Fund Certiorari and Prohibition Mandamus Relief Abuse of Process

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Constituency Development Fund

Respondent

Ben Francis Kebati

Respondent

Wilfred Sese

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the Notice of Motion dated 12th January 2012 should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the reliefs sought by the ex parte applicants have been overtaken by events and are now moot.
  3. 3 Whether the application by the ex parte applicants is fatally defective and an abuse of court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the ex parte applicants had failed to take any steps to prosecute their application since March 2012, despite being served with the application for dismissal and hearing notice. The court further held that the reliefs sought had been overtaken by events following the 2013 general elections, which resulted in the restructuring of the CDF Committees and possible changes in constituency boundaries and office holders. The application was also found to be defective for failing to specify the decision challenged and the reliefs sought. Consequently, the court concluded that it would be futile to maintain the suit on the court's registry and allowed the application for...

Court Disposition

Application to dismiss the suit allowed; suit dismissed for want of prosecution; costs to the applicant.

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 12th January 2012 and the entire suit are dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • The costs of the application shall be borne by the ex parte applicants.