[2011] KEHC 3615 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant was required to file and serve the substantive motion within 21 days from 24th December 2010, as expressly ordered. The applicant's reliance on Order 50 Rule 4 was misplaced because judicial review proceedings are governed by Order 53, which does not incorporate the general time...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 3615 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Transallied Ltd; Respondent: City Council of Nairobi; Interested Party: North Lake Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 378 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Reinstate Vacated Orders
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- DK Musinga
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review Procedure, Extension of Time, Vacation of Ex Parte Orders, Failure to Comply With Court Directions
- 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
Transallied Ltd
Applicant
City Council of Nairobi
Respondent
North Lake Ltd
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Reinstate Vacated Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant was entitled to reinstatement of ex parte orders vacated due to failure to file and serve the substantive motion within the stipulated period.
- 2 Whether Order 50 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies to judicial review proceedings governed by Order 53.
- 3 Whether the applicant's failure to attend court and comply with directions constituted sufficient cause for reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant was required to file and serve the substantive motion within 21 days from 24th December 2010, as expressly ordered. The applicant's reliance on Order 50 Rule 4 was misplaced because judicial review proceedings are governed by Order 53, which does not incorporate the general time computation provisions of Order 50. The applicant failed to comply with the court's clear directions and did not attend court on the scheduled date. There was no valid reason to reinstate the vacated ex parte orders. The application for reinstatement was therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent and interested party.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The applicant's application dated 25th January 2011 is dismissed with costs to the respondent and interested party.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 378 OF 2010
IN THE MATTER OF THE PHYSICAL PLANNING ACT NO. 6 OF 1996
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE LAW REFORM ACT CAP 26 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF TRANSALLIED LTD
AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FORORDERS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW FOR ORDERS OF PROHIBITION
TRANSALLIED LTD .................................................................................................. APPLICANT
AND
CITY COUNCIL OF NAIROBI ................................................................................RESPONDENT
AND
NORTH LAKE LTD ................................................................................... INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
On 24th December, 2010 this court granted leave to the applicant to apply for an order of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents, servants, agents or anyone claiming under them from interfering, harassing, demolishing or in any way tampering with the applicant’s business on L.R. No. 330/351 and 330/377, Thomson Estate on James Gichuru Road. The leave granted was to operate as a stay of any further action by the respondent relating to demolition or interference in any way whatsoever with the applicant’s aforesaid business, pending hearing of the substantive motion. The court further directed that the substantive motion be filed and served within 21 days from 24th December, 2010. The matter was to be mentioned on 24th January, 2011 for further orders and/or directions.
Come the 24th day of January, 2011 the applicant’s advocate did not attend court, only the advocates for the respondent and interested party were present. The said advocates told the court that they had been served with the extracted orders issued on 24th December, 2010 but the substantive motion had not been filed as directed by the court. They urged the court to vacate the orders that were issued on 24th December, 2010. The court observed that the leave that had been granted had lapsed and vacated the ex parte orders which had been issued in favour of the applicant.
On 25th January, 2011 the applicant filed an application seeking to vacate the orders made on 24th January, 2011 and reinstatement of the earlier orders made on 24th December, 2010. The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr. Simon Gitonga advocate. He stated that the brief had been given to him by the firm of Kounah and Company advocates and upon grant of the orders on 24th December, 2010 he did a brief and forwarded the file to the said firm but did not diarise the mention date. He further stated that he advised the firm of Kounah and Company that pursuant to Order 50 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules time was not running from 21st December to 13th January. He advised them that the deadline for filing substantive motion was 21 days after 13th January, 2011. Regarding court attendance on 24th January, 2011, counsel stated that he inadvertently forgot about the same.
The respondent and the interested party opposed the said application and stated that the provisions of Order 50 rule 4 do not apply to judicial review proceedings which are exclusively governed by Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules. This meant that the applicant was under an obligation to file his motion by 14th January, 2011.
Counsel for the parties made brief submissions in support of their respective clients’ affidavits and I have duly considered the submissions.
The orders made on 24th December, 2010 were very clear that–
“The substantive motion should be filed and servedwithin 21 days from the date hereof.”
That being the case, the applicant was under an obligation to file and serve his Notice of Motion by 14th January, 2011. I do not agree with Mr. Gitonga’s submission that he thought and/or believed that the 21 days were to run from 13th January, 2011. If that were the case there would have been no point of mentioning the matter on 24th January, 2011. It was the responsibility of counsel to make proper notes and attend court as required.
The applicant, having failed to file and serve the substantive motion within the stipulated period of time, and having failed to attend court on 24th January, 2011 the orders granted on 24th December, 2010 had to be vacated. I am not persuaded that there is any valid reason to necessitate lifting of this court’s orders issued on 24th January, 2011. Consequently, the applicant’s application is dismissed with costs to the respondent and interested party.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2011.
D. MUSINGA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Nazi – court clerk
Mr. Gitonga for the ex parte applicant
Mr. Okuta holding brief for Mr. Mburugu for the respondent
Mr. Otieno holding brief for Mrs. Shaw for the Interested party