[2007] KEHC 2893 (KLR)
The court found that the declarations sought in the present application and in High Court Misc. Case No.1345/05 raise substantially similar constitutional issues. In the interest of fairness and judicial economy, and given that 1345/05 has been described as a test case, it is appropriate to await its determination...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 2893 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stanley Koome; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: Commissioner of Insurance; Respondent: The Liquidator, Stallion Insurance Company Ltd; Respondent: Jane Njeri Mbugua
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 298 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Adjournment and Case Management
- Outcome
- Application deferred; mention date set for update on related test case.
- Judges
- JW Nyamu, BP Kubo
- Legal Topics
- Constitutional Review, Case Management, Stay of Proceedings
- 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
Stanley Koome
Applicant
Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
Commissioner of Insurance
Respondent
The Liquidator, Stallion Insurance Company Ltd
Respondent
Jane Njeri Mbugua
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Adjournment and Case Management
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the present application raises substantially similar constitutional issues as High Court Misc. Case No.1345/05.
- 2 Whether the present application should be stayed or deferred pending determination of the test case in 1345/05.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the declarations sought in the present application and in High Court Misc. Case No.1345/05 raise substantially similar constitutional issues. In the interest of fairness and judicial economy, and given that 1345/05 has been described as a test case, it is appropriate to await its determination before proceeding with the present application. The court therefore deferred the present matter and set a mention date for parties to update the court on the progress of 1345/05.
Court Disposition
Application deferred; mention date set for update on related test case.
Orders
- The present application is deferred pending the determination of High Court Misc. Case No.1345/05.
- A mention date is set for parties to update the court on the progress of 1345/05.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Misc Civil Suit 298 of 2005
IN THE MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW UNDER SECTION 3, 65 (2) AND 123 (8) OF THE CONSTITUTION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF NAIROBI CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) CIVIL SUIT NO.5635 OF 1999 JANE, NJERTI MBUGUA
VERSUS
STANLEYKOOME
BETWEEN
STANLEYKOOME…………...………………………. APPLICANT
AND
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL…………..1ST RESPONDENT
THE COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE…... 2ND RESPODNENT
THE LIQUIDATOR,
STALLION INSURANCE COMPANY LTD….3RD RESPONDENT
JANE NJERI MBUGUA…………….….………4TH RESPODNENT
RULING
Counsel for applicant informed the court that he was served only this morning with a replying affidavit by the 1st and 2nd respondents and that he needs time to file response thereto and asked for 14 days to do so. That is a reasonable request.
Both counsel for respondents maintain that the present application is similar to High Court Misc. Case No.1345/05 which is part-heard before Anga’wa J while applicant’s counsel maintains that the similarity between 1345/05 and the present application is not substantial. We asked counsel for 4th respondent to brief us on 1345/05 and when he read out the declarations being sought in 1345/05, it appeared to us that the declarations sought in 1345/05 and in the present case raise substantially similar constitutional issues.
Applicant’s counsel contended that issues in present application are wider and unique than those raised in 1345/05. Under section 3 of the Judicature Act, Cap.8, every court is a constitutional court and it is only fair that whatever constitutional issues have been raised in 1345/05, described as a test case, be determined first. Thereafter, the applicant can be at liberty to proceed with the present application.
For this reason, we shall give a mention date for the present case for the parties to give us an update on 1345/05.
Dated at Nairobi the 9th July, 2007.
J.G. NYAMU
JUDGE
B.P. KUBO
JUDGE