[2021] KEHC 6426 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 6426 (KLR)

The court found that the ex parte applicants failed to comply with its directions to serve the respondents and did not attend the scheduled hearing. In the absence of compliance and prosecution, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution, marking the case as closed without an...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 6426 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Principal Secretary, Ministry of Industrialization, Trade and Enterprise Development; Respondent: Secretary, Public Service Commission; Respondent: Chief Executive Officer, Micro and Small Enterprise Authority; Applicant: Charles Mwangi Waithaka; Applicant: Charles Kalomba Shiraho
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E060 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Non Prosecution
Outcome
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
P Nyamweya
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Certiorari, Prohibition, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Judicial Review Certiorari Prohibition Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Principal Secretary, Ministry of Industrialization, Trade and Enterprise Development

Respondent

Secretary, Public Service Commission

Respondent

Chief Executive Officer, Micro and Small Enterprise Authority

Respondent

Charles Mwangi Waithaka

Applicant

Charles Kalomba Shiraho

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Non Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte applicants complied with the court's directions to serve the respondents with the application and submissions.
  2. 2 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the ex parte applicants failed to comply with its directions to serve the respondents and did not attend the scheduled hearing. In the absence of compliance and prosecution, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution, marking the case as closed without an order as to costs.

Court Disposition

suit dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • This suit is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution with no order as to costs, and this case is accordingly marked as closed.
  • The Deputy Registrar of the Judicial Review Division shall send a copy of this ruling to the ex parte applicants by electronic mail by close of business on Thursday, 20th May 2021.