[2018] KEHC 7651 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had failed to diligently prosecute the application for conservatory orders, having repeatedly failed to comply with court directions, file submissions, or attend court to offer explanations for the delays. The court emphasized the duty of parties under Rule 6 of the Constitution of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 7651 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance; Respondent: Speaker, County Assembly of Nakuru; Respondent: County Assembly of Nakuru; Respondent: Governor, County Government of Nakuru; Respondent: County Government of Nakuru
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 38 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Conservatory Orders; Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Application dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Judges
- CC Kipkorir
- Legal Topics
- Conservatory Orders, Right to Fair Hearing, Public Appointments, Judicial Case Management
- 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
Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance
Applicant
Speaker, County Assembly of Nakuru
Respondent
County Assembly of Nakuru
Respondent
Governor, County Government of Nakuru
Respondent
County Government of Nakuru
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Conservatory Orders; Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to conservatory orders restraining the respondents from vetting and approving nominees for County Executive Committee positions pending determination of the petition.
- 2 Whether the applicant has diligently prosecuted the application in compliance with court directions and procedural rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had failed to diligently prosecute the application for conservatory orders, having repeatedly failed to comply with court directions, file submissions, or attend court to offer explanations for the delays. The court emphasized the duty of parties under Rule 6 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013, to assist the court by participating in proceedings and complying with directions. The applicant's conduct demonstrated a lack of interest in pursuing the application, justifying its dismissal for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed for want of prosecution.
Orders
- The application dated 18th October, 2017 is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
PETITION NO. 38 OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES ,2,3,10,56,73,124,59,65,79, 196, 232 AND 259 THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 3,4,7,8, 9 OF THE LEADERSHIP AND INTERGRITY ACT NO.19 OF 202
AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 30 (2 AND 3) OF THE COUNTY GOVERNMENTS ACT, 2012 (ACT NO.17 OF 2012)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 4,5,10 OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE (VALUES AND PRINCIPLES) ACT, 2015
AND
IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 8. 10 AND 1 OF TH PUBLIC APPOINTMENT (COUNTY ASSEMBLY APPROVAL) ACT NO.5 OF 2017
AND
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 7 OF THE NATIONAL COHESION ACT NO.12 OF 2008
BETWEEN
TRUSTED SOCIETY OF HUMAN RIGHTS ALLIANCE..............PETITIONR
-VERSUS-
SPEAKER, COUNTY ASSEMBLY OF NAKURU................1ST RESPONDENT
COUNTY ASSEMBLY OF NAKURU....................................2ND RESPONDENT
GOVERNOR, COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF NAKURU...3RD RESPONDENT
COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF NAKURU............................4TH RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The petition herein was filed by the petitioner on 18th October, 2017. Along with the petition the petitioner filed a notice of motion dated 18th October, 2017. The application sought orders inter alia that:-
i. That pending the inter-parties hearing and determination of the application, this Honourable court be pleased to issue a conservatory barring and/prohibiting the 1st and 2nd respondents from vetting, approving or in any manner dealing with the names of Dr. Peter Evans Kiplangat, Eng. Lucy Wanjiku Kariuki, Lawrence Mwangangi Mwania, Eng. Joseph Irungu Mburu, Halima Gabara Abdulahi, Eng. Festus Kipkoech Ngeno, Dr. Immaculate Njuthe, Raymond Komen, Dr. Jonah Manjari Mwangi and Joseph Wainaina Kiuma or any other name other than in compliance with Constitution as nominees for the positions County Executive Committee Members of the 4th Respondent for approval.
ii. That pending the inter-parties hearing and determination of the petition, this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a conservatory order barring and/prohibiting the 1st and 2nd respondents from vetting, interviewing, approving or in any manner dealing with the names of Dr. Peter Evans Kiplangat, Eng. Lucy Wanjiku Kariuki, Lawrence Mwangangi Mwania, Eng. Joseph Irungu Mburu, Halima Gabara Abdulahi, Eng. Festus Kipkoech Ngeno, Dr. Immaculate Njuthe, Raymond Komen, Dr. Jonah Manjari Mwangi and Joseph Wainaina Kiuma or any other name other than in compliance with Constitution as nominees for the positions County Executive Committee Members of the 4th Respondent for approval.
2. The application was certified urgent by Odero J who directed that the prayer for conservatory orders be heard inter-partes. When the matter came up before me for directions on 6th November, 2017, the parties took directions to file replying affidavits and submissions and be ready for highlighting the same on 5th December, 2017. On that date, Mr. Kibet representing the 1st and 2nd respondents indicated that they had not filed submissions. While Mr. Situma who held brief for Mr. Otieno for the petitioner sought more time to file submissions. The court granted time extension to 23rd January, 2018. On that date the petitioner was still not ready with their submissions and prayed for 7 days’ time extension. The 3rd and 4th respondents had by then filed their submissions. The court granted the petitioner a final adjournment.
3. The application came up again on 19th February, 2018. Mr. Otieno for the petitioners/applicants did not attend court. There was also no appearance for the 3rd and 4th respondents. Mr. Kipkoech for the 1st and 2nd respondents asked the court to dismiss the application for reason that the petitioners had shown a lot of liturgy and seemed to have lost interest in the application. He submitted that whereas the 1st and 2nd respondents had filed grounds of opposition and submissions and the 3rd respondent had filed submissions, the petitioners were yet to comply with the directions of the court.
4. I have perused the record as set out above. It is clear that the applicant has not been diligent in prosecuting the application. It has come up four times in court without any tangible progress being made by the applicant to move forward the application. The applicant has not only failed to comply with the directions of the court but has failed to attend court to offer any explanation. Rule 6 of Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013places a duty on parties to assist the court to further the overriding objective in litigation by participating in the processes of the court; and, by complying with the directions of the court. The applicant is clearly in contravention of this rule.
5. In view of the above, I have no hesitation in finding that the petitioner/applicant has lost interest in the application. It is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Order accordingly.
Ruling delivered, dated and signed This 20th day of March, 2018
R. LAGAT KORIR
JUDGE
In the presence of:
C/A Emojong
Ms. Amulabi for the petitioners
Mr. Kipkoech for the 1st and 2nd respondents
Mr. Kipkoech holding brief for Mr. Kibet for the 3rd and 4th respondents