[2024] KEHC 6929 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 6929 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent's decision to close the applicant's business and refuse to issue licences was not defended or justified, as the respondent failed to file any response or submissions despite being served. In the absence of any rebuttal, and upon consideration of the applicant's affidavits and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 6929 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: County Government of Taita Taveta; Applicant: Juma Barsley Mwashimba t/a JV Hotel Mwatate
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Voi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review E002 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judicial Review Orders
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
GMA Dulu
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Certiorari, Mandamus, Prohibition Orders, Fair Administrative Action, Licensing Decisions
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Certiorari Mandamus Prohibition Orders Fair Administrative Action Licensing Decisions

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

County Government of Taita Taveta

Respondent

Juma Barsley Mwashimba t/a JV Hotel Mwatate

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judicial Review Orders

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's decision to close the applicant's business and refuse to issue licences was lawful and procedurally fair.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to judicial review orders of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition against the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's decision to close the applicant's business and refuse to issue licences was not defended or justified, as the respondent failed to file any response or submissions despite being served. In the absence of any rebuttal, and upon consideration of the applicant's affidavits and submissions, the court held that the applicant had established grounds for judicial review. The respondent's actions were found to be procedurally unfair and contrary to the requirements of fair administrative action under the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Actions Act. The court therefore granted the orders of certiorari to quash the impugned decision, mandamus to compel...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Order of certiorari issued to quash the respondent's decision of 12th March 2024 closing the applicant's business and refusing licences.
  • Order of mandamus issued compelling the respondent to immediately open the applicant's business and issue relevant licences forthwith.