[2019] KEHC 1566 (KLR)
The court held that the application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings was fatally defective for two reasons: first, the Attorney General, who would represent the Principal Magistrate's Court whose orders were being challenged, was not served as required by Order 53 rule (4) of the Civil Procedure...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 1566 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Theophilus Kipkoech Rop; Respondent: Warran Construction Co. Ltd; Respondent: Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Suit 57 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Commence Judicial Review
- Outcome
- application struck out
- Judges
- GMA Dulu
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Leave to Apply, Service of Process, Striking Out, Magistrates Court Orders
- 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
Theophilus Kipkoech Rop
Applicant
Warran Construction Co. Ltd
Respondent
Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Commence Judicial Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to commence judicial review proceedings should be granted in the absence of service on the Attorney General.
- 2 Whether failure to name the Bomet Principal Magistrate's Court as a party renders the application fatally defective.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings was fatally defective for two reasons: first, the Attorney General, who would represent the Principal Magistrate's Court whose orders were being challenged, was not served as required by Order 53 rule (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules; second, the Bomet Principal Magistrate's Court, whose orders were the subject of the intended judicial review, was not named as a party, contrary to the requirements of Order 53 rule (3) (2). The combination of these procedural defects deprived the court of the basis to grant leave, and the application was accordingly struck out.
Court Disposition
application struck out
Orders
- The application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings is struck out.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC MOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICHO
MISC. CIVIL SUIT NO.57 OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF: AN APPLICATION BY THEOPHILUS KIPKOECH ROP FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT CAP 486 LAWS OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE ACT CAP 21 LAWS OF KENYA
IN THE MATTER OF THE BOMET PRINCPAL MAGISTRATE COURT FILE NO.68 OF 2015 WARRAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD -VERSUS- TRANSWIFT INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED
EXPARTE
THEOPHILUS KIPKOECH ROP.............................APPLICANT
VERSUS
WARRAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.......1ST RESPONDENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL................................2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This is an application dated 24th July 2019 for leave to file Judicial Review proceedings which is erroneously described as a Miscellaneous Civil Suit.
2. It was brought under Order 53 rules (1), (2) and (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, seeking leave to commence Judicial Review proceedings for Certiorari relating to orders made in Bomet Principal Magistrate’s Civil Case No.68 of 2015 committing the applicant to civil jail; and for stay of execution of the magistrate’s orders.
3. The application is grounded on the Statement of the applicant Theophilus Kipkoech Rop, which was however, signed by counsel, as well as a Verifying Affidavit of the applicant which he swore on 24th July 2019 in which he annexed a ruling dated 1st April 2019 in which the Magistrates Court at Bomet dismissed his request for lifting the warrant of arrest issued against him.
4. This court ordered that the respondents including the Attorney general be served, but the Attorney General according to counsel was not served. In addition, though the order complained of is the order of the Principal Magistrate at Bomet, that court is not a party in the application.
5. This court will not grant the leave sought to commence Judicial Review proceedings herein. The first reason for this is that though this court ordered under the provision to Order 53 rule (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules that the application should be served on all parties, the Attorney General who would represent the Principal Magistrate’s Court which made the orders complained of was not served.
6. The second reason is that in my view, the application is fatally defective as the Bomet Principal Magistrate’s Court whose orders are sought to be challenged in the intended Judicial Review proceedings and who would have to be served with the Notice of Motion under Order 53 rule (3) (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules is not named as a party.
7. In those circumstances, this application in my view is fatally defective and I strike out the same.
Dated and delivered at Kericho this 11th day of December 2019.
George Dulu
JUDGE