https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7593

Republic v Principal Secretary Internal Security & National Administration & 2 others; Rukunga (Ex parte) (Judicial Review E415 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7593 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (4 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7593 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Judicial Review Judicial Review E415 of 2025 WM Musyoka, J June 4, 2026 Between Republic Applicant and The Principal Secretary Internal Security & National Administration 1st Respondent The Inspector General National Police Service 2nd Respondent The Hon Attorney General 3rd Respondent and Morris Thuranira Rukunga Ex parte Ruling 1.What I am called upon to determine is an application dated 18th February 2026, which seeks reinstatement of an application dated 9th January 2026, and extension of time to have the substantive motion filed out of time. The reasons given for not attending court on 16th February 2026, when the matter came up, are given on the face of the application, and in the supporting affidavit. 2.The application is opposed, through grounds of opposition, dated 13th April 2026. The grounds are that the application was properly struck out, no good excuse has been given for not attending court, the non-attendance is not the only incidence of lapses by the applicant, there had been proper service of the notice for hearing, among others. 3.The record reflects that leave, of 21 days, to file the substantive motion, had been given on 29th September 2025. The 21 days lapsed on 20th October 2025, yet the motion was not filed until 18th December 2025, some 59 days outside the 21 days allowed by the court, making an aggregate of 80 days between the date leave was granted and the date of filing. That notice of motion was struck out on 19th December 2025, for having been filed outside time, and without leave. 4.An application was then filed on 9th January 2026, by the ex parte applicant, seeking reinstatement of the motion struck out on 19th December 2025, and extension of time to file the substantive motion. That application was allocated 10th February 2026, as the date for mention for further directions. On 10th February 2026, the respondents were represented in court, but the ex parte applicant was not present nor represented. The Advocate for the respondents, Ms. Wamuyu, was given a date for the hearing on the matter, being 18th February 2026, when the application was to be urged orally. 5.Come 18th February 2026, Ms. Wamuyu was in court, for the respondents, but the ex parte applicant was not present, neither was his Advocate. Ms. Wamuyu indicated that she had filed grounds of opposition, which she had served on the ex parte applicant, together with a hearing notice. She urged that the application, dated 9th January 2026, be dismissed for non-attendance. The court acceded to the prayer, and dismissed the said application, for want of prosecution or non-attendance. It was that dismissal which prompted the filing of the instant application. 6.This is a classic case of tardiness on the part of the applicant or his Advocate. He obtained leave on 29th September 2025, of 21 days, to file a substantive motion. He did not take advantage of the 21 days, for he did not file his motion within that period. He did not file one until 80 days had expired. He did not bother to seek leave for extension of time, before he filed the ill-fated motion. 7.I fail to understand why the ex parte applicant took so long to file the motion, given that the anticipated motion should be a court paper of not more than 1 or 2 pages, for it should be a motion which is not supported by any affidavit, for Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules envisages that, upon that motion being filed, it be served together with the statement of facts and the affidavit verifying it, filed at the leave stage. One would wonder why the ex parte applicant would even require 21 days to file such a document. 8.Anyhow, upon the striking out of that motion, he sought to have it reinstated, vide the application, dated 9th January 2026. Directions were given for its mention on 10th February 2026, but the ex parte applicant did not attend court, on that date, to take directions on its disposal. The Advocate for the other side did attend court, and was gracious enough not to call for its striking out, at that stage. Instead, she obtained a date for its hearing, and went out of her way to serve a hearing notice on the Advocate for the ex parte applicant. Again, the ex parte applicant or his Advocate did not attend court, on the due date, 26th February 2026, despite service. 9.The ex parte applicant, or his Advocate, is blaming Ms. Wamuyu for serving the documents using the wrong email address, or for using an email address which had issues. It is unfortunate. The matter did not belong to Ms. Wamuyu or her clients, but to the ex parte applicant. It was his duty and that of his Advocate to follow up on his matter. He had filed it under certificate of urgency, and the court handled it during court recess, and gave clear directions. It was up to the ex parte applicant, and not Ms. Wamuyu, to exercise diligence, by keenly following up on the matter. 10.We are in a technological epoch that is effectively rendering useless the necessity to serve some court processes on the other side. Proceedings are accessible by either party through the CTS. All what the ex parte applicant or his Advocate needed to do was to visit the CTS, to establish what had transpired in court on 10th February 2026, without having to wait for Ms. Wamuyu to serve him. That they could do that very day, the 10th February 2026. I reiterate, it was his matter, it was his duty to exercise diligence, more so after he had squandered the chance to file the motion within the 21 days that the court had directed. 11.I am not persuaded that there is merit in the application, dated 18th February 2026. It is for dismissal, and I hereby dismiss it. Orders accordingly. DELIVERED, VIA EMAIL, DATED AND SIGNED IN CHAMBERS, AT MILIMANI, NAIROBI, ON THIS 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.W MUSYOKAJUDGEMr. Brian, Court Assistant.AdvocatesMr. Wanda, instructed by Chege Kibathi & Company, Advocates for the ex parte applicant.Ms. Wamuyu, instructed by the Attorney General, for the respondents.