[2021] KEHC 6406 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 6406 (KLR)

The court found that the 1st Respondent was not aware of the previous directions and judgment date due to lack of service and that it had demonstrated a desire to participate in the proceedings by preparing submissions and filing the relevant application. The Court of Appeal had declined to stay the proceedings, but...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 6406 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Kenya National Examination Council; Respondent: Ministry of Education; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General; Applicant: Chairman and Form Four Parents’ Association 2018 Ikhlas Integrated High School (Suing on behalf of Parents of Ikhlas Integrated High School)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review 36 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Application to Arrest Judgment and for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application allowed; judgment date vacated; directions issued for inter partes hearing and filing of submissions.
Judges
P Nyamweya
Legal Topics
Judicial Review Procedure, Extension of Time, Service of Process
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Procedure Extension of Time Service 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Kenya National Examination Council

Respondent

Ministry of Education

Respondent

The Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Chairman and Form Four Parents’ Association 2018 Ikhlas Integrated High School (Suing on behalf of Parents of Ikhlas Integrated High School)

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Ruling on Application to Arrest Judgment and for Extension of Time

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Respondent should be granted an order to arrest the delivery of judgment pending hearing of its application.
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Respondent should be granted leave to file submissions out of time.
  3. 3 Whether the previous directions and service were properly effected on the 1st Respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 1st Respondent was not aware of the previous directions and judgment date due to lack of service and that it had demonstrated a desire to participate in the proceedings by preparing submissions and filing the relevant application. The Court of Appeal had declined to stay the proceedings, but the interests of justice required that the 1st Respondent's application be heard inter partes before judgment is delivered. Consequently, the judgment date was vacated, and directions were issued for service and filing of submissions to ensure all parties are heard before final determination.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; judgment date vacated; directions issued for inter partes hearing and filing of submissions.

Orders

  • The judgment dated 29th June 2021 is hereby vacated.
  • The 1st Respondent shall serve the ex parte Applicant with the Notice of Motion application dated 26th May 2021, submissions dated 25th May 2021, a copy of this ruling, and a hearing notice within ten days.