[2025] KEHC 6861 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's chamber summons failed to disclose any grounds for judicial review on its face, as required by Order 53 Rule 2(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The grounds for judicial review, such as illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety, were not stated, and the application...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 6861 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Tiwamba Ricon Sacco Limited; Respondent: County Executive Committee Member for Mobility & Works Nairobi City County; Respondent: Chief Officer, Mobility & Works Nairobi City County; Respondent: Director, Transport & Infrastructure, Nairobi City County; Respondent: Nairobi City County Government; Respondent: Prime Transit Sacco Limited; Respondent: Rembo Shuttle Savings and Credit Co-operative Society Sacco
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review Application E057 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Certification of Urgency and Leave to Apply
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review Procedure, Leave to Apply, Grounds for Judicial Review, Parking Disputes
- 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
Tiwamba Ricon Sacco Limited
Applicant
County Executive Committee Member for Mobility & Works Nairobi City County
Respondent
Chief Officer, Mobility & Works Nairobi City County
Respondent
Director, Transport & Infrastructure, Nairobi City County
Respondent
Nairobi City County Government
Respondent
Prime Transit Sacco Limited
Respondent
Rembo Shuttle Savings and Credit Co-operative Society Sacco
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Certification of Urgency and Leave to Apply
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application discloses grounds for judicial review as required under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the dispute over parking space is suitable for determination through judicial review proceedings.
- 3 Whether the application should be certified as urgent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's chamber summons failed to disclose any grounds for judicial review on its face, as required by Order 53 Rule 2(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The grounds for judicial review, such as illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety, were not stated, and the application merely set out the prayers sought. Furthermore, the dispute concerned entitlement to use parking spaces, which are not proprietary rights but licences, and resolution of such disputes would require a merit-based determination involving evidence and cross-examination, which is outside the scope of judicial review proceedings. Consequently, the court held that the matter was not...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 14/5/2025 is dismissed.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
Tiwamba Ricon Sacco Limited v County Executive Committee Member for Mobility & Works Nairobi City County & 5 others (Judicial Review Application E057 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 6861 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (20 May 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 6861 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Judicial Review
Judicial Review Application E057 of 2025
RE Aburili, J
May 20, 2025
Between
Tiwamba Ricon Sacco Limited
Applicant
and
County Executive Committee Member for Mobility & Works Nairobi City County
1st Respondent
Chief Officer, Mobility & Works Nairobi City County
2nd Respondent
Director, Transport & Infrastructure, Nairobi City County
3rd Respondent
Nairobi City County Government
4th Respondent
Prime Transit Sacco Limited
5th Respondent
Rembo Shuttle Savings and Credit Co-operative Society Sacco
6th Respondent
Ruling
1. I have considered the chamber summons dated 14/5/2025 filed under certificate of urgency. I do not find any urgency involved. I decline to certify it as urgent.
2. On the merits thereof, the application is filed under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules although other provisions of the other statutes and the Constitution are cited.
3. However, from my perusal of the chamber summons, apart from the prayers sought, there are no grounds for Judicial Review disclosed on the face of it. That in itself disentitles the applicant leave to apply. Order 53 Rule 2 (a) of the Civil procedure Rules provides that:53 (2) An application for such leave shall be made ex parte to a judge in chambers, and shall be accompanied by —a.a statement setting out the name and description of the applicant, the relief sought, and the grounds on which it is sought.
4. Grounds cannot be subsumed into the statement of facts or affidavit. They should be grounds upon which judicial review orders sought can be granted and not facts deposed to. The grounds include illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety among others, and how those grounds are relevant to the specific case. None of those grounds are stated on the face of the chamber summons
5. Secondly, the matters in dispute are serious disputes regarding parking space. Those are matters which require merit determination as to who, between the applicant and the 5th & 6th Respondents, are entitled to use the parking space for their respective fleet motor vehicles.
6. Those are not matters of entitlement of rights since the spaces in question are not property of any of the competing parties and are only given out on licence.This court cannot deal with merit issues involved, which I find heavily weigh on evidence to be adduced and cross examination of parties will be necessary.
7. Accordingly, I find that this is not a matter which can be resolved through Judicial Review proceedings. The applicant is advised to file a civil suit in the appropriate court for consideration on merit.
8. In the end, I find the application dated 14/5/2025 not suitable for Judicial Review remedies and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
9. This file is closed. Ruling to be typed and uploaded, the applicant’s counsel to be notified forthwith.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 20THDAY OF MAY, 2025R.E. ABURILIJUDGE