[2020] KEHC 1133 (KLR)
The court found the application fatally defective for several reasons: it failed to specify the precise judicial review orders sought, contrary to Order 53 Rule 1(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules; it did not attach the impugned decision that was the subject of challenge; the authority for the 73 other...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 1133 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Satmar Technologies Company Limited & 73 Others; Respondent: National Employment Authority; Respondent: National Industrial Training Authority
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review Application E1148 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Chamber Summons for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
- Outcome
- application struck out for being incompetently filed
- Judges
- P Nyamweya
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Compliance, Order 53 Civil Procedure Rules
- 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
Satmar Technologies Company Limited & 73 Others
Applicant
National Employment Authority
Respondent
National Industrial Training Authority
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Chamber Summons for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for leave to apply for judicial review is competent in the absence of specific reliefs sought.
- 2 Whether failure to attach the impugned decision and a signed authority for other applicants renders the application defective.
- 3 Whether the absence of a supporting statement as required by Order 53 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules invalidates the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found the application fatally defective for several reasons: it failed to specify the precise judicial review orders sought, contrary to Order 53 Rule 1(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules; it did not attach the impugned decision that was the subject of challenge; the authority for the 73 other applicants was unsigned, rendering their participation unsupported; and the application lacked the mandatory supporting statement required by the rules. These procedural lapses deprived the court of jurisdiction to consider the merits of the application, leading to its summary striking out.
Court Disposition
application struck out for being incompetently filed
Orders
- The ex parte Applicant's Chamber Summons dated 4th December 2020 is struck out for being incompetently filed.
- There shall be no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION NO. E1148 OF 2020
REPUBLIC..............................................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT AUTHORITY..........................1ST RESPONDENT
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRAINING AUTHORITY.......2ND RESPONDENT
EX PARTE APPLICANT:
SATMAR TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY LIMITED & 73 OTHERS
RULING
1. Satmar Technologies Company Limited, the ex parte Applicant herein has filed an application by way of a Chamber Summons dated 4th December 2020, seeking the following orders:
1. THAT this matter be certified urgent and heard expeditiously on a priority basis.
2. THAT the court be pleased to grant leave to apply for Judicial Review.
3. THAT the grant of leave to operate as a stay of the Respondent’s decision which directed all training institutions duly accredited to offer the Homecare Management Course from extending the period of the said course to thirty (30) days from the initial two (2) weeks.
4. THAT the costs of this application.
2. The said application is supported by a verifying affidavit sworn on 4th December 2020 by Virginia Njoki Murigi, the ex parte Applicant’s Director.
3. A number of observations and findings make it impossible to deal with this application.
4. Firstly, I note that leave is being sought to apply for judicial review, and no specific judicial review orders are indicated in the application. This Court is accordingly not in a position to determine if such leave is justified. Order 53 Rule 1(1) and (2) in this respect envisages the specific relief sought by a party and grounds thereof to be indicated in an application for leave, and provides as follows:
“(1) No application for an order of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari shall be made unless leave therefor has been granted in accordance with this rule.
(2) An application for such leave as aforesaid shall be made ex parte to a judge in chambers, and shall be accompanied by a statement setting out the name and description of the applicant, the relief sought, and the grounds on which it is sought, and by affidavits verifying the facts relied on.”
5. Secondly, the ex parte Applicant has not provided evidence of the impugned decision that is the subject of its application, as the said communication which is averred to in its verifying affidavit to be in Annexure “VNM6”, has not been attached. Thirdly, the application is brought by the ex parte Applicant and 73 other parties who are not named or known, and there is an authority annexed in this regard that is not signed.
6. Lastly, the ex parte Applicant’s application is not supported by a statement as required by Order 53 Rule1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and is therefore incompetently filed.
7. In the circumstances, I hereby direct and order as follows:
I.The ex parte Applicant’sChamber Summons dated 4th December 2020, is hereby struck out for being incompetently filed.
II.There shall beno order as to costs.
8. Orders accordingly.
DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
P. NYAMWEYA
JUDGE