[2006] KEHC 2177 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants had properly served the notice of motion and hearing notice on the respondents, as evidenced by the affidavits of service on record. The respondents failed to appear or challenge the application. The court accepted the applicants' unopposed submissions and found no reason to deny...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 2177 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Registrar of Co-operative Societies; Respondent: Commissioner Societies; Applicant: Thiriku Coffee Growers Co-op Society Ltd; Applicant: Wachuri Farmers Co-op Society Ltd; Applicant: Gathaithi Farmers Co-op Society Ltd; Applicant: Gachatha Farmers Co-op Society Ltd; Applicant: Giakanja Farmers Co-op Society Ltd; Applicant: Njuriga Farmers Co-op Society Ltd; Applicant: Githiru Farmers Co-op Society Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 153 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judicial Review Orders
- Outcome
- Notice of motion granted as prayed; judicial review orders of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition issued against the respondents.
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Certiorari, Mandamus, Prohibition, Service of Process
- 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
Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Respondent
Commissioner Societies
Respondent
Thiriku Coffee Growers Co-op Society Ltd
Applicant
Wachuri Farmers Co-op Society Ltd
Applicant
Gathaithi Farmers Co-op Society Ltd
Applicant
Gachatha Farmers Co-op Society Ltd
Applicant
Giakanja Farmers Co-op Society Ltd
Applicant
Njuriga Farmers Co-op Society Ltd
Applicant
Githiru Farmers Co-op Society Ltd
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judicial Review Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to orders of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition against the respondents.
- 2 Whether service of the notice of motion and hearing notice was properly effected on the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants had properly served the notice of motion and hearing notice on the respondents, as evidenced by the affidavits of service on record. The respondents failed to appear or challenge the application. The court accepted the applicants' unopposed submissions and found no reason to deny the judicial review orders sought. Accordingly, the court granted the notice of motion as prayed, issuing orders of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition against the respondents.
Court Disposition
Notice of motion granted as prayed; judicial review orders of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition issued against the respondents.
Orders
- Order of certiorari granted as prayed in the notice of motion dated 17th September, 2004.
- Order of mandamus granted as prayed in the notice of motion dated 17th September, 2004.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYERI
Misc Appli 153 of 2004
REPUBLIC………………………………….......................……………………………APPLICANT
Versus
THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES…..............................1ST RESPONDENT
THE COMMISSIONER SOCIETIES……........................……………………2ND RESPONDENT
EXPARTE
THIRIKU COFFEE GROWERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD
WACHURI FARMERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD
GATHAITHI FARMERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD
GACHATHA FARMERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD
GIAKANJA FARMERS CO-OP SOCEITY LTD
NJURIGA FARMERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD
GITHIRU FARMERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD ....................................................APPLICANTS
R U L I N G
In this Notice of Motion brought under order L III Rule 3 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules the applicants want an order of certiorari in the first prayer, an order of Mandamus in the second prayer and an order of prohibition in the third prayer. The Notice of Motion dated 17th September, 2004 was filed pursuant to leave granted on the 31st of August 2004 in Nyeri H. C. Miscellaneous Application No. 139 of 2004. Prayer number four is for costs.
According to process servers affidavits of service filed in the Court Case file, the Notice of Motion as well as the relevant hearing notice were duly served. The hearing notice for 16th May, 2006 can be said to have been served on 1st February 2006 although it had already been left with a Secretary in Mr. S. S. Orinas Office either on the 24th or 25th January, 2006, a period of not less than three and a half months to the hearing date.
But on that hearing date, 16th May, 2006, there was no appearance for the Respondents. But Mr. Muteithia, Counsel for the Applicants, proceeded with the prosecution of the Notice of Motion dated 17th September, 2004. What he said is not challenged in any way and having carefully considered it, I find no good reason to deny the Applicants the orders prayed for.
Accordingly, the Notice of Motion dated 17th September, 2004 is hereby granted as prayed
Dated, delivered and signed at Nyeri this 15th day of June, 2006.
J. M. KHAMONI
JUDGE