[2023] KEHC 18967 (KLR)
The court found that the ex parte applicant, through counsel, failed to take any steps to prosecute the judicial review application after filing, despite being served with notices and reminders. The applicant's repeated absence and failure to respond to the Notice to Show Cause demonstrated a lack of interest in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 18967 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecution; Respondent: Senior Resident Magistrate Court Milimani; Respondent: Director of Criminal Investigations; Applicant: Fredrick Vigedi Kivisi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E161 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondents
- Judges
- JM Chigiti
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Certiorari, Prohibition, Want of Prosecution
- 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 Public Prosecution
Respondent
Senior Resident Magistrate Court Milimani
Respondent
Director of Criminal Investigations
Respondent
Fredrick Vigedi Kivisi
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the ex parte applicant demonstrated interest in prosecuting the judicial review application.
- 2 Whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the ex parte applicant, through counsel, failed to take any steps to prosecute the judicial review application after filing, despite being served with notices and reminders. The applicant's repeated absence and failure to respond to the Notice to Show Cause demonstrated a lack of interest in pursuing the matter. The court held that it is incumbent upon a party who initiates proceedings to actively prosecute their case. Failure to do so justifies dismissal for want of prosecution to prevent abuse of court process and ensure efficient administration of justice. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
application dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondents
Orders
- The application dated October 25, 2021 is dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
Republic v Director of Public Prosecution & 2 others; Kivisi (Exparte) (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E161 of 2021) [2023] KEHC 18967 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (22 June 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 18967 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Judicial Review
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E161 of 2021
JM Chigiti, J
June 22, 2023
Between
Republic
Applicant
and
Director of Public Prosecution
1st Respondent
Senior Resident Magistrate Court Milimani
2nd Respondent
Director of Criminal Investigations
3rd Respondent
and
Fredrick Vigedi Kivisi
Exparte
Ruling
1. The Ex parte Applicant filed a Chamber Summons application dated October 25, 2021 under Certificate of Urgency seeking leave to file a substantive motion for the prerogative writs of certiorari and prohibition against the Respondents herein. The Applicant also sought for the said leave if granted to operate as a stay.
2. Upon considering the said Certificate of Urgency and Chamber Summons and its Ruling dated November 1, 2021, the Court directed that owing to the nature of the application the law and precedent governing the grant of leave it was imperative for the application to be canvassed interpartes.
3. The Respondents filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on November 24, 2021 and written submissions dated November 25, 2021.
4. However, the Ex parte Applicant has failed to further prosecute the matter and has failed to appear before the court on several occasions leading to the Deputy Registrar issuing a Notice to Show Cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
5. The matter was listed for hearing of the said Notice to Show Cause on May 15, 2023 when the Respondents confirmed that the Deputy Registrar had reissued the Notice for Want of Prosecution. There was no appearance on behalf of the Ex parte Applicant.
6. The Ex parte Applicant’s counsel the firm Laverne Nabwana & Company Advocates having failed to appear before the court on several occasions despite there being communication on diverse dates as can be for instance evidenced by the emails dated February 16, 2022 and May 4, 2022 is a clear indication of the Ex parte Applicant’s disinterest in pursuing the instant suit.
Order:The Application dated October 25, 2021 is dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the Respondents.It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2023……………………………………J. CHIGITI (SC)JUDGE