[2013] KEHC 2915 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had breached the conditions of his permit by keeping 21 heads of cattle instead of the permitted seven and by failing to pay for the permit. The respondent was therefore entitled under the relevant by-laws to revoke the permit and impound the cattle. There was no evidence that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 2915 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Ouko Liech; Respondent: Kisumu Municipal Council
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 28 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Judgment
- Outcome
- motion dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Municipal by Laws, Revocation of Permits, Impounding of Animals
- 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
John Ouko Liech
Applicant
Kisumu Municipal Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent acted unlawfully in revoking the applicant's permit to keep cattle within the municipality.
- 2 Whether the respondent exceeded its powers by impounding the applicant's cattle.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to orders of certiorari and prohibition against the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had breached the conditions of his permit by keeping 21 heads of cattle instead of the permitted seven and by failing to pay for the permit. The respondent was therefore entitled under the relevant by-laws to revoke the permit and impound the cattle. There was no evidence that the respondent acted unlawfully or exceeded its powers. Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to the judicial review remedies of certiorari and prohibition sought in the motion.
Court Disposition
motion dismissed with costs
Orders
- The prayers for certiorari and prohibition are denied.
- The motion is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU
JR. NO. 28 OF 2012
REPUBLIC
VERSUS
KISUMU MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
EX-PARTE
JOHN OUKO LIECH
JUDGEMENT
On 3-2-2010 the ex-parteapplicant was permitted by the respondent to keep seven (7) heads of cattle at his residence within Nyalenda estate of the Municipality. The permit allowed the ex-parte applicant to graze the cattle within the Peri-urban areas of the Municipality. The permission was subject to the provisions of the Municipal Council of Kisumu (Stabling, Keeping and Grazing of Domestic Animals and Poultry By-Laws 2008). The by-laws provide that no person shall keep or graze cattle within the Municipality without the Town Clerk's permit and such permit would prescribe conditions upon which it was issued. That include the number of cattle to be kept. The council had the discretion to cancel such permit. Any cattle kept or grazed without permit, or kept or grazed outside the conditions, would be subject to impounding. Lastly, the ex-parte applicant was to pay for the permit.
The letter written by the respondent revoking the permit was dated 13-4-2012. It referred to the permit and stated that although the ex-parteapplicant had been allowed to keep 7 cattle at his Nyalenda residence, he had been found with about four times the number of cattle in Milimani estate. Further, that he had not paid for the permit. These were the reasons why the permit was being revoked.
In short, it does appear true that the ex-parte applicant kept 21 heads of cattle within the Municipality. He was found with the cattle in Milimani estate. He had not paid for the permit for the 7 cattle allowed. He breached the conditions in the permit and therefore the respondent was not only entitled to revoke the permit but also to impound the cattle.
This is not to say that the respondent was at liberty to disobey a court order. The ex-parte applicant has before the subordinate court an application for contempt in respect of the injunction. It it pending. The subordinate court will have to determine if its order was disobeyed by the respondent.
In short, I do not find that the respondent did anything wrong, unlawful, or exceeded its powers when it revoked the permit given to the ex-parte applicant or when it impounded his cattle. The result is that the prayers for Certiorari and Prohibition cannot issue. The motion is dismissed with costs.
Delivered on 22nd July 2013
JUDGE
A. MUCHELULE