george nangale prof peter anyang nyongo and ten others v attorney general of kenya and five others application no2 of 2006 arising from reference no1 of 2006 2006

george nangale prof peter anyang nyongo and ten others v attorney general of kenya and five others application no2 of 2006 arising from reference no1 of 2006 2006

The extracted order did not correspond to the ruling it purported to embody, and no circumstances made it inexpedient or inequitable to correct it; therefore, the Court allowed the application to correct the order.

Citation
george nangale prof peter anyang nyongo and ten others v attorney general of kenya and five others application no2 of 2006 arising from reference no1 of 2006 2006
Parties
Applicant: George Nangale; Claimants: Prof. Peter Anyang Nyong’o and 10 Others; 1st Respondent: Attorney General of Kenya; Respondents: East African Community (3rd and 4th Respondents)
Court
EACJ
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Reference Proceedings / Ruling on Application to Correct Extracted Order
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
Correction of Court Orders, Interim Injunctions, Judicial Discretion, Compliance With Court Rules
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Regional Integration Law Civil Procedure Correction of Court Orders Interim Injunctions Judicial Discretion Compliance With Court Rules

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Nangale

Applicant

Prof. Peter Anyang Nyong’o and 10 Others

Claimants

Attorney General of Kenya

1st Respondent

East African Community (3rd and 4th Respondents)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Reference Proceedings / Ruling on Application to Correct Extracted Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extracted order corresponded with the ruling of the Court
  2. 2 Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to correct the extracted order

Ratio Decidendi

The extracted order did not correspond to the ruling it purported to embody, and no circumstances made it inexpedient or inequitable to correct it; therefore, the Court allowed the application to correct the order.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • The extracted order is to be corrected to correspond and be in the terms of the reliefs granted in the ruling of 27th November 2006.
  • No order as to costs.