[1998] KEHC 134 (KLR)

[1998] KEHC 134 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent's requirement for the applicant to obtain a 'Travellers Wholesalers' licence was not supported by the Trade Licensing Act or the Pharmaceutical and Poisons Act, under which the applicant was already duly licensed. The imposition of an additional licensing requirement was therefore...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1998] KEHC 134 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Univet Laboratories (East Africa) Ltd; Respondent: The Municipal Council of Thika
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Children Miscellaneous Application 1090 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Substantive Judicial Review Application
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
A Mbogholi-Msagha
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Ultra Vires Actions, Trade Licensing, Pharmaceutical Regulation
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Judicial Review Ultra Vires Actions Trade Licensing Pharmaceutical Regulation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Univet Laboratories (East Africa) Ltd

Applicant

The Municipal Council of Thika

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Substantive Judicial Review Application

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's requirement for a 'Travellers Wholesalers' licence is lawful under the Trade Licensing Act and the Pharmaceutical and Poisons Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent acted ultra vires its statutory powers by imposing the additional licensing requirement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's requirement for the applicant to obtain a 'Travellers Wholesalers' licence was not supported by the Trade Licensing Act or the Pharmaceutical and Poisons Act, under which the applicant was already duly licensed. The imposition of an additional licensing requirement was therefore ultra vires and unlawful. The court granted the orders of prohibition and mandamus as sought by the applicant, restraining the respondent from enforcing the unlawful requirement and compelling it to act within the law.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Orders of prohibition and mandamus granted as sought in the Notice of Motion dated 19th December, 1997.
  • The applicant shall have the costs of the application.