[2022] KEHC 2865 (KLR)
The court found that the respondents did not adequately address the prayer for stay, and that granting a stay would not cause harm to either party. The court held that the purpose of a stay is to preserve the status quo pending the determination of the substantive issues. Therefore, it was just and equitable to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 2865 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Director of Criminal Investigations, Regional Co-ordinator Garissa; Respondent: The Regional County Surveyor Garissa; Respondent: The Honourable Attorney General; Respondent: The Inspector General of Police; Applicant: Mohamed Omar Ahmed; Applicant: Ahmed G. Gabow; Applicant: Ibrahim Mohamed Abdullahi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Garissa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review E002 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Hearing
- Outcome
- stay granted pending hearing and determination of the suit
- Judges
- A Ali-Aroni
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Certiorari, Prohibition, Stay Orders, Land Boundary Disputes
- 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
Republic
Applicant
Director of Criminal Investigations, Regional Co-ordinator Garissa
Respondent
The Regional County Surveyor Garissa
Respondent
The Honourable Attorney General
Respondent
The Inspector General of Police
Respondent
Mohamed Omar Ahmed
Applicant
Ahmed G. Gabow
Applicant
Ibrahim Mohamed Abdullahi
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave should operate as a stay of the implementation of the decision to re-survey the boundary of Wasib Farm L.R No. 32234 pending hearing and determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the respondents should be prohibited from carrying out the intended survey exercise as per the letter dated 3rd February 2021.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents did not adequately address the prayer for stay, and that granting a stay would not cause harm to either party. The court held that the purpose of a stay is to preserve the status quo pending the determination of the substantive issues. Therefore, it was just and equitable to grant a stay of the implementation of the proposed survey works as contemplated in the letter of 3rd February 2021 until the hearing and determination of the suit.
Court Disposition
stay granted pending hearing and determination of the suit
Orders
- A stay of the implementation of the proposed survey works contemplated in the letter of 3rd February 2021 is granted pending hearing and determination of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT GARISSA
JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. E002 OF 2021
REPUBLIC................................................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS,
REGIONAL CO-ORDINATOR GARISSA..................................1st RESPONDENT
THE REGIONAL COUNTY SURVEYOR GARISSA..............2ND RESPONDENT
THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL.......................3RD RESPONDENT
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE..............................4TH RESPONDENT
EXPARTE......................................................................MOHAMED OMAR AHMED
AHMED G. GABOW
IBRAHIM MOHAMED ABDULLAHI
RULING
1. The Ex parte Applicants moved the court on the 15th of February 2021 seeking for leave to file judicial review orders in the nature of certiorari to remove into the court and quash the decision of 1st and 2nd respondents contained in a letter dated 3rd February 2021 to carry out re-surveying of the boundary of Wasib Farm L.R No. 32234 and secondly, leave to apply for an order of prohibition to prohibit and restrain the 1st and 2nd respondents from carrying out the intended survey exercise as suggested 3rd February 2021 or at all. The Exparte Applicants also sought pending hearing and determination of the substantive motion for the leave so granted do operate as a stay.
2. Prayers b & c above were granted, pending was the last prayer for stay.
3. The response by the respondents failed to touch on prayer c despite the court’s order that the said prayer be argued inter partes. The responses have addressed the issue of re-survey.
4. The purpose of a stay order is to preserve status quo pending hearing and determination of the issue in question.
5. In my considered opinion no harm will be suffered by either side should this court stay the implementation of the decision of the 1st and 2nd respondents to carry out the intended survey pending hearing and determination of the issues raised in this suit.
6. Consequently, a stay of the implementation of the proposed survey works contemplated in the letter of 3rd of February 2021 be and is hereby granted pending hearing and determination of the suit.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT GARISSA THIS 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022.
.....................
ALI-ARONI
JUDGE