[2025] KEHC 4181 (KLR)
The court found that although the exparte applicant failed to file a response within the stipulated timeline, the recusal of the previous judge contributed to the delay. In the interest of justice and to ensure that all parties are heard, the court exercised its discretion to grant the exparte applicant a 7-day...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 4181 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Nairobi Metropolitan Services (NMS); Respondent: The Director Roads, Public Works Transport, NMS; Respondent: The Director of Enforcement, NMS; Respondent: The Inspector General of Police; Respondent: The DTO Central Police Station; Respondent: The Hon Attorney General; Interested Party: Metro Trans EA Limited; Applicant: Kaka Travellers Cooperative Savings and Credit Society Limited; Contemnor: Rosana Oscar Omurwa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review Application E131 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Respond to Application to Set Aside Contempt Proceedings
- Outcome
- Application for extension of time granted; exparte applicant to file and serve response within 7 days; applicant awarded costs for the day; exparte applicant to pay court adjournment fees.
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Extension of Time, Adjournment, Judicial Discretion
- 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
Nairobi Metropolitan Services (NMS)
Respondent
The Director Roads, Public Works Transport, NMS
Respondent
The Director of Enforcement, NMS
Respondent
The Inspector General of Police
Respondent
The DTO Central Police Station
Respondent
The Hon Attorney General
Respondent
Metro Trans EA Limited
Interested Party
Kaka Travellers Cooperative Savings and Credit Society Limited
Applicant
Rosana Oscar Omurwa
Contemnor
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Respond to Application to Set Aside Contempt Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the exparte applicant should be granted an extension of time to file a response to the application to set aside contempt proceedings.
- 2 Whether the delay in filing the response is excusable and whether the court should exercise its discretion in favour of the exparte applicant.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs for the adjournment caused by the exparte applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the exparte applicant failed to file a response within the stipulated timeline, the recusal of the previous judge contributed to the delay. In the interest of justice and to ensure that all parties are heard, the court exercised its discretion to grant the exparte applicant a 7-day extension to file and serve a replying affidavit and written submissions. The court held that any prejudice to the applicant could be compensated by an award of costs and the payment of court adjournment fees by the exparte applicant. The court emphasized the importance of judicial time and the need to avoid piecemeal hearings, thus allowing the matter to proceed efficiently after...
Court Disposition
Application for extension of time granted; exparte applicant to file and serve response within 7 days; applicant awarded costs for the day; exparte applicant to pay court adjournment fees.
Orders
- Exparte applicant granted 7 days from today to file and serve a replying affidavit and written submissions.
- Applicant to have 7 days from date of service to file and serve a further affidavit and supplementary submissions if necessary.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
47 paragraphs
Republic v Nairobi Metropolitan Services (NMS) & 5 others; Metro Trans EA Limited (Interested Party); Kaka Travellers Cooperative Savings and Credit Society Limited (Exparte Applicant); Omurwa (Contemnor) (Judicial Review Application E131 of 2022) [2025] KEHC 4181 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (2 April 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 4181 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Judicial Review
Judicial Review Application E131 of 2022
RE Aburili, J
April 2, 2025
Between
Republic
Applicant
and
Nairobi Metropolitan Services (NMS)
1st Respondent
The Director Roads, Public Works Transport, NMS
2nd Respondent
The Director of Enforcement, NMS
3rd Respondent
The Inspector General of Police
4th Respondent
The DTO Central Police Station
5th Respondent
The Hon Attorney General
6th Respondent
and
Metro Trans EA Limited
Interested Party
and
Kaka Travellers Cooperative Savings and Credit Society Limited
Exparte Applicant
and
Rosana Oscar Omurwa
Contemnor
Ruling
1. This matter is due for hearing of the application dated 11/3/2024, by way of highlighting of the applicant’s written submissions.
2. Apparently, when the court gave directions for the hearing today, the exparte applicant’s Counsel was not present in court on 3/3/2025. Mr. Kinyanjui also joined the online platform when Mr. Tugee for the Applicant on the application was already making the highlights.
3. I observe that the exparte applicant did not file any response to the application and that the Hon. Justice Chigiti did recuse himself from hearing the matter, after giving directions in the matter, on account of conflict of interest.
4. There are contempt proceedings which the applicant is seeking to set aside while the benefactor of the said contempt orders is opposed to the application to set aside those proceedings but no response was filed.
5. Counsel, Mr. Kinyanjui has however requested for 7 days to respond to the application in writing as initially, he was verbally objecting to the application being heard before the conclusion of the contempt proceedings.
6. The applicant’s Counsel opposes the request for extension of time to file a response on account that the exparte applicant was given a timeline which was not met. Mr. Ndegwa supports the position taken by Mr. Tugee, Counsel for the applicant in the application.
7. I have considered arguments by all Counsel, for and in favour of an adjournment to allow the exparte applicant to file a response to the application seeking to set aside contempt proceedings/orders
8. The exparte applicant seeks the court’s discretion which must be exercised judiciously bearing in mind that delayed justice is denied justice. However, all the parties have been waiting to be heard by the court and had Chigiti J SC not recused himself from this case, the matter would have been resolved by now, one way or the other.
9. In my view, now that the exparte applicant is desirous of being heard in opposition to the application dated 11/3/2024 and so as to save judicial time of hearing an application upon application, and to accord the exparte applicant, the initiator of these proceedings the opportunity to be heard, and as the prejudice if any can be compensated by costs.
10. I hereby exercise discretion and grant the exparte applicant the requested 7 days of today to file and serve a replying affidavit together with written submissions upon which the applicant shall have 7 days of date of service to file and serve a further affidavit if need be, together with supplementary submissions. Parties shall then appear for highlighting of their submissions in the new term on 14/5/2025.
11. The applicant in the application dated 11/3/2025 shall have costs for today in any event, and the exparte applicant shall pay court adjournment fees of Kshs. 4000/- before the next hearing date as it has come in late to cause the adjournment.
12. I so order.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025R.E. ABURILIJUDGE