https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7038

Republic v Registrar of Societies & another; Muthoni & 5 others (Ex parte Applicants) (Judicial Review E052 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 7038 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (21 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7038 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Judicial Review Judicial Review E052 of 2026 TW Ouya, J May 21, 2026 Between Republic Applicant and Registrar of Societies 1st Respondent Attorney General 2nd Respondent and Grace Muthoni Ex parte Applicant James Kamwathi Ex parte Applicant Fredrick Njuguna Ex parte Applicant Mary Njeri Ex parte Applicant Richard Mathu Ex parte Applicant Thomas Wahome (Suing on his Behalf and on Behalf of Helicopter of Christ Church) Ex parte Applicant Ruling 1.The Applicant moved this honorable court vide Chamber Summons Application dated 24th January 2026 seeking orders that:i.The Application be and is hereby certified as extremely urgent, heard forthwith Exparte in the first instance and leave be granted to the Exparte Applicants to apply for the following Judicial Review orders:a.Certiorari for the purpose of quashing the 1st Respondent’s illegal directive to cancel the registration of the Exparte Applicants church; andb.Prohibition restraining the 1st Respondent by itself, its agents or anyone else under its instructions from engaging in any manner of disruption or obstruction of the operations of Helicopter of Christ Church, under the guise of effecting the enforcement of the deregistration published in the Gazette Notice.ii.The leave so granted do operate as a stay of the 1st Respondent’s directive cancelling the registration of the Exparte Applicants Helicopter of Christ Church as announced in the Gazette Notice published on the 18th of August 2023.iii.This Honorable court does allow an exception to the Exparte Applicants exempting him from the obligation of exhausting other remedies available in the ultimate interest of justice and to prevent irreparable harm.iv.A declaration does hereby issue that the directive by the 1st Respondent to cancel the registration of Helicopter of Christ Church is unreasonable and in violation of the Exparte Applicants’ right to fair administrative action guaranteed under Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya and in violation of the Exparte Applicants freedom of religion guaranteed under Article 32 of the Constitution. 2.The Application is supported by a Statutory statement dated 24th January 2026 and Verifying affidavit of even date sworn by Thomas Njuguna, the Bishop of the Helicopter of Christ Church. 3.It is the Applicant’s case that the 1st Respondent published a gazette notice on the 18th of August 2023, which gazette notice was dated the 3rd of August 2023, announcing the cancellation of Registration of the Exparte Applicants' church, the Helicopter of Christ Church and the cancellation took effect on the 19th of May 2023, notwithstanding the fact that there was no Notice to Show Cause issued or notification made to the Exparte Applicants of the intended deregistration by the 1st Respondent or the grounds for the same. 4.He asserts that despite several attempts to appeal against the cancellation, the 1st Respondent has refused/ neglected or failed to offer redress, therefore exposing the Applicant’s to loss of property and disarray of over 16000 members of the church. 5.The actions by the 1st Respondent violated the Applicants’ rights to fair administrative action as they were never given an opportunity to be heard before the decision to cancel their registration was made. Therefore, the Applicants seek leave to institute judicial review proceedings of certiorari and prohibition against the Respondents in the interest of justice. 6.The Application is unopposed as the Respondents did not file any responses or submissions. Analysis and Determination; 7.I have considered the pleadings by the Applicants and the main issue for determination is whether the Applicant has made a case to warrant rant of the reliefs sought. 8.The applicable law on leave to commence judicial review proceedings is Order 53 Rule 1of the Civil Procedure Rules, which provides that no Application for judicial review orders should be made unless leave of the court was sought and granted. 9.The reason for the leave was explained by Waki J (as he then was), in Republic v County Council of Kwale & Another Ex Parte Kondo & 57 Others, Mombasa HCMCA No. 384 of 1996 as follows:“The purpose of Application for leave to apply for judicial review is firstly to eliminate at an early stage any Applications for judicial review which are either frivolous, vexatious or hopeless and secondly to ensure that the Applicant is only allowed to proceed to substantive hearing if the Court is satisfied that there is a case fit for further consideration. The requirement that leave must be obtained before making an Application for judicial review is designed to prevent the time of the court being wasted by busy bodies with misguided or trivial complaints or administrative error, and to remove the uncertainty in which public officers and authorities might be left as to whether they could safely proceed with administrative action while proceedings for judicial review of it were actually pending even though misconceived…Leave may only be granted therefore if on the material available the court is of the view, without going into the matter in depth, that there is an arguable case for granting the relief claimed by the Applicant the test being whether there is a case fit for further investigation at a full inter partes hearing of the substantive Application for judicial review. It is an exercise of the court’s discretion but as always it has to be exercised judicially”. 10.It is also trite that in an application for leave, the Court ought not to delve deeply into the arguments of the parties, but should make cursory perusal of the evidence before court and make the decision as to whether an Applicant’s case is sufficiently meritorious to justify leave. 11.Before grant of leave, it is crucial to establish that the case is arguable without delving into the merits of the arguments of the parties as held in the case of Republic vs. Land Disputes Tribunal Court Central Division and Another Ex Parte Nzioka [20061 1 EA 321 where the court held;“That leave should be granted, if on the material available the court considers, without going into the matter in depth, that there is an arguable case for granting leave.” 12.A perusal of the pleadings demonstrates that the decision that is intended to be challenged through judicial review was made on 18th August 2023. It is therefore 2 years 4 months since the decision that the Applicants seek to challenge via Judicial review was made. 13.Section 9 (3) of the Law Reform Act, cap 26 reads as follows;“In the case of an application for an order of certiorari to remove any judgement, order, decree, conviction or other proceedings for the purposes of its being quashed, leave shall not be granted unless the application for leave is made not later than six months after the date of that judgement, order, decree, conviction or other proceedings or such shorter period as may be prescribed under any written law; and where that judgement, order, decree, conviction or other proceedings is subject to appeal, and a time is limited by law for bring of the appeal, the court or judge may adjourn the application for leave until the appeal is determined or the time for appealing has expired. 14.Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 provides as follows;-“Leave shall not be granted to apply for an order of certiorari to remove any judgment, order, decree, conviction or other proceedings for the purposes of its being quashed , unless the application for leave is made not later than six months after the date of the proceeding or such shorter period as may be prescribed by the act; and where the proceeding is subject to appeal and a time is limited by law for bringing of the appeal, the judge may adjourn the application for leave until the appeal is determined or the time for appeal has expired.” 15.A plain reading of the above two sections of the Law Reform Act, cap 26 and order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 requires the court to confirm where or not a period of six (6) months have lapsed since when the judgement, order, decree, conviction being quashed was made. In the event that a period of six months has lapsed since the judgment, order, decree or conviction being quashed was made, then leave should not be granted. 16.The use of the word “shall” in section 9 of the Law Reform Act, cap 26 and order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 emphasizes of the need to comply with this pre-condition before leave is granted to institute judicial review proceedings of certiorari. 17.In order to cure the challenge posed by the strict requirements requiring institution of certiorari proceedings within six months, a person is required to seek leave for extension of time to institute certiorari proceedings. Such extension of time offers one an opportunity to explain the reason for the delay as a means to ensuring that justice is served without any undue regard to procedural technicalities. 18.In the instant case, the Applicants have neither prayed for extension of time to institute the judicial review proceedings of certiorari nor advanced any reason to explain the 2 year and 4 months period of delay that preceded the filing of the suit herein. 19.In the absence of an order or prayer of extension of time for instituting the judicial review proceedings of certiorari, there is no basis upon which this honorable court can grant the prayers sought. In the circumstances, I find that the Applicants have not established an arguable case to warrant the grant of leave to institute judicial review proceedings against the Respondents. 20.I therefore hold and find the Applicant has not made out a prima case that can justify the grant of the orders sought. and that this finding sufficiently disposes this case in its entirety. For the above reasons, I find that the application lacks merit and I proceed to dismiss it. 21.Final Orders: Application dated 24th January 2026 is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondent. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2026.T.W. OUYA, OGWJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Manani for ApplicantsNo appearance for RespondentsHamza/Kevin – Court AssistantsJR. NO. E052 OF 2026 Page | 3