[2005] KEHC 830 (KLR)

[2005] KEHC 830 (KLR)

The court found that the question of whether the Kadhi court has jurisdiction over child custody is a moot point warranting judicial review. Accordingly, leave to commence judicial review proceedings was granted. However, the court declined to order that the leave operate as a stay, noting that the child was already...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] KEHC 830 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Kadhi Sheikh Twalib; Interested Party: Arif Ramadhan Karama
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 903 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Leave to Commence Judicial Review
Outcome
Leave to commence judicial review granted; leave does not operate as a stay; directions given for expedited hearing.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Jurisdiction of Kadhi Court, Child Custody, Leave to Apply for Certiorari, Prohibition Orders
Source Language
en
Family and Children Civil Procedure Judicial Review Jurisdiction of Kadhi Court Child Custody Leave to Apply for Certiorari Prohibition Orders

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Kadhi Sheikh Twalib

Respondent

Arif Ramadhan Karama

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Leave to Commence Judicial Review

  1. 1 Whether the Kadhi court has jurisdiction to determine matters of child custody.
  2. 2 Whether leave to commence judicial review proceedings should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether leave should operate as a stay of the Kadhi court's orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the question of whether the Kadhi court has jurisdiction over child custody is a moot point warranting judicial review. Accordingly, leave to commence judicial review proceedings was granted. However, the court declined to order that the leave operate as a stay, noting that the child was already in the custody of the interested party and that it would be traumatizing to forcibly move the child between parents. The court directed that the substantive application be filed and served within 15 days and be heard on a priority basis.

Court Disposition

Leave to commence judicial review granted; leave does not operate as a stay; directions given for expedited hearing.

Orders

  • Leave to commence judicial review proceedings is granted as prayed.
  • Leave shall not operate as a stay of the Kadhi court's orders.