Alloice Odhiambo Limutu v Chief Magistrate’s Court at Nairobi & Judith Awuor Nyawade [2017] KEHC 936 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  648 OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDERS OF CERTIORARI, AND PROHIBITION

AND

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 27(1), 47, 48 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010

AND

IN THE MATTER OF CHIEF   MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT NAIROBI

BETWEEN

ALLOICE ODHIAMBO LIMUTU …………………......................APPLICANT

VERSUS

CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT NAIROBI…….......1ST RESPONDENT

JUDITH AWUOR NYAWADE …………...……………….2ND RESPONDENT

RULING ON LEAVE AND STAY

1. The exparte  applicant  Aloice Odhiambo  Lumutu seeks  vide his  application dated 9th November 2017 leave of court  to institute  Judicial Review proceedings for orders  of Certioraridirected at the Chief Magistrate’s Court, Nairobi quashing its decision and order  dated 15th June  2017 in Judicial Separation No.8 of 2017; Prohibition directed  at the said  Chief Magistrate’s  Court or any other subordinate court whatsoever from hearing  or determining and or any further orders(sic) in Judicial Separation No. 8 of  2017;  That leave  so granted  do operate as  stay of the orders  granted  by the said  Chief  Magistrate’s Court  in Judicial Separation  No. 8  of  2017; and  costs.

2. The  applicant  relies on his  statutory  statement  and  verifying  affidavit and exhibits  all filed on 9th November  2017 and  dated   the same day.

3. The  application is opposed  by  the 2nd respondent Judith Awour  Nyawade through her replying affidavit sworn on 14th June  2017  and filed  on 15th November  2017.

4. According  to the exparte  applicant, he is legally married  to the 2nd  respondent as per the annexed  marriage certificate  and  that on 14th June 2017 the  2nd  respondent  filed petition  for  Judicial Separation in the Chief Magistrate’s Court simultaneous  with  an application seeking for an exclusion order, to bar the  applicant  from visiting  her, entering, staying  and remaining  in their matrimonial home being Nairobi/Block/140/287/40 in Nyayo  Estate Embakasi Nairobi.

5. That the 2nd Respondent obtained exparte orders and the matter was  set for interpartes  hearing  on 28th June  2017 and the  applicant  herein  was served on  15th June  2017.  That because  the  exparte applicant was  deficient of time  and  resources, he  instructed  an advocate on the eve of  the interpartes hearing and that his advocate filed an  application to vacate  or review  the exparte  orders of  15th June  2017  and the trial magistrate  directed  the  matter to be  heard on  29th June  2017.

6. It is  claimed that the matter has deliberately  never been  heard despite the prejudice and hardship the exparte order is occasioning  to the exparte applicant herein as  he  was  excluded  from his own  house  which  he bought through Tenant  Purchase  Scheme.

7. That the orders as issued were final yet such orders of exclusion ought not to have  been issued exparte  without  according  the exparte applicant an opportunity  to be heard as  their marriage  with the 2nd respondent is still  subsisting.

8. That he has since lost  his employment  and has no  income  hence the  2nd  respondent  is taking advantage of  the applicant’s economic  status.

9. That if the exclusion orders are not vacated, the minor children of the marriage who still depend on the exparte applicant will be subjected to destitute and denied their fatherly love.  The applicant claims that the orders issued were not justified and that the said house risks being sold for nonpayment of the loan.

10. That the court did not have  jurisdiction to issue the  exclusion   orders as  such orders  are not available  in Judicial Separation  and that such orders can  only be  issued by  the  Family Division of the High Court.

11. In the replying affidavit  sworn by the  2nd respondent  Judith Awuor Nyawade on 14th November 2017, she  contends that  the application is  frivolous, incompetent, premature and an outright abuse of the court process, that there  is no demonstration of illegality, irrationality or  procedural impropriety on the part of the Magistrate’s Court in granting  the impugned orders.  That the said orders were issued in accordance with Section 12(3) of the Matrimonial Property Act, 2013; that there is nondisclosure  of material  facts to the  effect  that the lower court  is yet  to make  a final decision in that there  is a pending application the applicant filed seeking to set aside  the exparte  orders  of  Judicial Separation; that the applicant has not complied  with Section  9(1) (2)  and  (3)  of the Fair  Administrative  Action Act   on exhaustion of all available  remedies; that these proceedings seek to challenge the merits of the decision and not the decision making process by the Magistrate’s Court.

12. The parties’ advocates urged the application yesterday  15th November  20917  relying on their  respective  documentation and  affidavits on  record.

13. Miss Kioko Advocate  for the  applicant  reiterated  that the Magistrate’s Court had no  jurisdiction to grant execution orders  in Judicial Separation  matter and  that the orders  were final  in nature  and  were made exparte without according the applicant an opportunity  to be heard.

14. It was submitted that the  applicant lost  his job  hence he  has  been  rendered  a vagabond  which  is a violation  of this rights  to the matrimonial  home and to decent housing.  Counsel for the applicant maintained that exclusion orders can only issue in divorce proceedings not in Judicial Separation Petition.

15. Mr Masaviru counsel for the 2ndrespondent submitted in opposition relying on his client’s replying affidavit  and  contending  that the  applicant  had  not  demonstrated  that he  has a prima  facie  arguable  case; that  he  was  challenging  merits  of the decision and not  the decision  making process; that the impugned order is amenable to challenge and  that Judicial Review is a last  resort  forum  but is  being  used as  appeal  against  orders of the lower court; that  the prayer for prohibition as framed  is an  injunction  against the lower court to  prohibit it from executing  its  judicial  and  constitutional mandate; that the orders issued were in accordance with the provisions of the Matrimonial Property Act, Section 12 (3) thereof.

16. That there is  inordinate  delay  in bringing  these proceedings  and that the applicant should have exhausted alternative  remedies  under  the  Fair  Administrative  Action Act, Sections  9(2), (3),( 4) before  coming to this court.  It was also argued that the applicant had not claimed any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.  Counsel  relied on two decisions HC  Divorce   cause No. 5/2007  SWN vs  MKK at Nakuru  where the court held that the court had jurisdiction under the matrimonial causes Act to grant an exclusion order for   protection of an applicant from  threat of violence by her  husband  so that  he is restrained  from  visiting  the matrimonial   home where there  is a possibility  that he would  injure  the petitioner.

17. Further reliance  was placed on JR 202/2013 Republic vs  CM’s Court  Embu, Kenya Power and Lighting Company Ltd  and  2  others  where the court held, inter alia that orders granted by a court  exparte  could be reviewed  or an appeal  filed  to challenge  them but not  through Judicial Review.  The same   principle   was espoused in Busia ELC JR 6/2012.

18. Mr Masaviru also relied  on this court’s decision  in JR 61/2016 Republic vs Wellington Kihato Wamburu & 3 Others  exparte  Kenyatta  University  & 3 others  on the Yardstick for  grant  of leave in Judicial Review  proceedings, maintaining that the applicant  herein  had not  met the test.  He urged the court to dismiss the application for leave and stay.

19. In a rejoinder, Miss  Kioko  submitted that her client  is concerned  with how  the  exclusion  order  was  made  without first  according him  an opportunity  to be heard  which  was  in violation of his rights  to a hearing and  to housing.  That  although  they had  filed  an application for  setting  aside  the exparte  orders of exclusion, the magistrate had deliberately  refused to  hear  and  determine  the application.  She urged this court to grant her client the orders sought.

DETERMINATION

20. I have  carefully considered  the  applicant’s  chamber summons as supported by  statutory  statement  and  verifying  affidavit  together with the  exhibits  annexed  thereto.  I have  also considered   the  2nd respondent’s  replying  affidavit  and  both parties’ counsels’  oral submissions  in court  and  the statutory  case law  and  constitutional provisions  relied on.

21. In my view, the only  issue for  determination  is whether the applicant  deserved  leave  to apply for  Judicial Review  orders of certiorari  and  prohibition  and  if so,  whether  leave if granted  should operate  as stay of  the   exclusion orders issued  by the lower court  in Separation Cause No.  8/2017.

22. Simply stated, the applicant   is the   husband to the 2nd respondent from 2007 as per the annexed marriage certificate.  They have  lived under one roof until the wife  instituted the Judicial Separation proceedings  alleging  cruelty, desertion and  infidelity  among other  grounds contained  in the annexed  pleadings before  the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Milimani Commercial Courts, Nairobi.

23. The two are blessed with three issues who are still minors.  On  14th June 2017, simultaneous with the filing of the  Judicial Separation  cause, the  2nd respondent  filed an application under certificate of urgency  praying for of  temporary  exclusion  of the applicant  from  visiting , entering, staying and  remaining  on the  matrimonial home on title  No Nairobi/Block  140/287/40 situate  in Nyayo  Estate, Embakasi, pending   hearing and  determination of the  application and  the petition for  Judicial Separation.

24. The court heard the application exparte under certificate of urgency and granted the prayer that:

“ In the interim  pending the hearing and determination of this application, there be a temporal exclusion order excluding the 1st defendant  from visiting, entering, staying  and  remaining  on the matrimonial home being title number Nairobi/Block 140/287/40 situate in  Nyayo Estate – Embakasi.

That the  application to be served for interpartes hearing  on  28th June 2017 this court(sic)”

25. The order which was issued by Honourable I. Orenge (Mr) had a penal notice appended thereto. There  are no proceedings of the lower court availed to this court to show how the trial magistrate has conducted himself as alleged  that he has deliberately  never heard  and  determined  the application  seeking    to set aside  that exparte  order  of exclusion.  What is  however seriously  impugned  is that  the magistrate had  no jurisdiction to issue  an exclusion  order in Judicial Separation  proceedings which order  can only  issue in Divorce  proceedings  in the High Court. It is further claimed that the applicant  was condemned  unheard by the exclusion  order, which order  has  rendered him a  vagabond  as he had  lost his job and with  nowhere  to go, his rights  to housing have  been violated  yet the  house  belongs to him through  a Tenant  Purchase  Scheme  with National Social Security Fund (NSSF).

26. The purpose  for leave  is to  filter  and weed  out  hopeless  or frivolous  cases thereby saving pressure  on the courts  and  needless  expense  for parties  by allowing  futile and   malicious  claims  to be  excluded  or eliminated  so as to prevent  paralysis  of public  bodies, in execution of their  mandate under the law.  See Matiba vs Attorney General  Nairobi  HC Miscellaneous  Application  790/1993; Republic vs  Permanent  Secretary  of Planning  and  National  Development  Exparte  Kaimenyi  [2006] e KLR

27. In Judicial  Review, the  court’s role  at leave stage  is to do  no more than decide whether there is an  arguable  case for  Judicial  Review investigation  at a substance  stage  and not to determine  any issue finally in favour of the applicant.  On an exparte application, leave may be refused, or deferred to the substantive hearing and this is what this court did – to accord an interpartes hearing.

28. The court therefore restricts itself to threshold  issues of whether  the applicant has an arguable case and if leave is granted, whether it should operate as stay( see Re International SA  Bureau Veritas[2005] EA 43.

29. In this case, I find,  without hesitation that there is no prima  facie arguable  case for  indepth consideration at the substantive  stage.  The reasons  are that the lower  court clearly considered  the exparte application for exclusion orders and whether it  rightly  or wrongly  exercised  its discretion  in so granting the  orders is for the  applicant to seek  to set  aside those orders first  and  where the court  declines, then the applicant has an opportunity to file an appeal.

30. The orders granted by the subordinate court were injunctive in nature, though brought  in Judicial  Separation proceedings.  The applicant even went ahead  and filed  an  application to set aside/review  the said exparte orders after he was served  with the orders.  The court gave him a hearing date.

31. The trial magistrate had  made it trite that  the exparte orders were temporary  pending  hearing of the application  interpartes,  not until the  entire proceedings  are hear and determined.as alleged by the exparte applicant herein.Therefore,  there is no finality  of the exparte orders issued by the subordinate court.

32. In my humble view, the applicant herein has failed to demonstrate that the court in granting exparte orders  temporarily lacked  jurisdiction to do so.  As to  whether  the court  should not  have issued  exclusion orders  is still within the court’s  mandate to review or vacate the orders which were made exparte, at the interpartes hearing or on application by the exparte applicant who is aggrieved by those orders.  It is not for this court to injunct the trial court by  cutting its hands  not to consider  an application  seeking to  set  aside the exparte  orders which orders  are interim and not  final.

33. The application for setting  aside the exparte orders is the appropriate  remedy  or relief for the applicant.  It is effective and should a party be dissatisfied with the outcome, they are free to appeal  the decision.  That is the spirit of Section 9(2) (3) and (4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015 which mandates that an applicant   for  Judicial Review  must first  satisfy   the court that they have exhausted the internal review or appeal mechanisms  available or apply to be exempted from resorting to such  internal review  mechanisms, citing  special  circumstances.

34. No application for exemption  from resorting  to the  alternative  and efficacious review  mechanisms  has been placed before this  court  and no such  special circumstances exist  in this court  to exclude the trial court from hearing and determining an application for  setting  aside of the  exparte orders.

35. The courts  have held not  once but severally that where  there is a clear procedure for the redress of any particular grievances  prescribed  by law, that  procedure should be strictly followed.  (see Court of Appeal decisions in  Mutanga Tea  & Coffee Company Ltd  vs Shikara  Ltd & Another [2015] e KLR [CA] citing Kones vs Republic & another exparte Kimani Wanyoike & 4 Others[2008] e KLR.  See also Samson Chemo Vuko vs Nelson Kilumo & 2 Others [2016]  e KLRwhere the Court of Appeal  citingSpeaker of the National Assembly  vs Karume [2008] 1 KLR  425stated inter alia:

“…..where there is a clear procedure of the redress of any particular  grievances  prescribed in  the Constitution  or the Act of Parliament, that procedure should be strictly followed”

36. This court  exercises  supervisory  jurisdiction  over subordinate  courts,  bodies and authorities as contemplated in Article 165(6)  of the Constitution. However, the role  of this  court is not  to take over proceedings being regularly conducted by the  trial courts  and  in the process  interfere with due process especially where there is no demonstration of bias or breach of the rules  of natural justice  or any proof of  procedural  impropriety in the manner  in which such  proceedings  are conducted.

37. I reiterate  that there  is  no law that   bars  a court of  competent  jurisdiction  to issue exparte  orders in the first instance for the preservation of the subject  matter  of a suit  or matter  under consideration.  See Order 51 Rule 3 and 15 of the Civil  Procedure  Rule.

38. This court  would not  intervene  in the circumstances of this  case  as  described.  To do so  would  be in effect   sitting  on appeal  of the orders  of the trial court  yet  this court  is not  sitting  as  an appellate  court.  The effect  of the orders sought  herein if  granted  would be  to set aside the  exparte  orders  of the trial court and leave it with the entire suit to hear and  determine  which in my view would be interfering  with  judicial discretion of that  court.  There is no demonstration of abuse of legal  process by the trial court,  which only  granted  an interim  order and directed the applicant therein to serve the other parties  for inter partes  hearing.

39. In my view, that process by the trial court cannot be considered to be an irrational decision of the court and if it was, the remedy lies in the  applicant herein seeking  to overturn  that order  before the same  court.  There is absolutely  no demonstration that the magistrate  has deliberately  refused to hear the  application seeking  to set aside  the exparte  orders  issued on 14th June  2017  and at the hearing of this application, the  court did not hesitate to caution counsel for the exparte  applicant against imputations on the trial magistrate when no proceedings  were availed  to show the  alleged  impropriety on the part  of the trial court.

40. What the applicant has placed before this court is an appeal against the orders of Honourable I. Orenge and not  judicial review.

41. In the end, I find that this court is not the appropriate forum for challenging the impugned decision of the trial court,  which decision  can be  challenged  via review  or setting  aside of the  impugned  orders.

42. Consequently, I decline to grant leave and proceed to dismiss the application dated 9th November 2017.

43. As the parties are a couple who are feuding, I order that each party do bear their own costs of this application which is hereby dismissed.

Orders accordingly.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 16th day of November 2017.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Miss Mathenge h/b for Mr Masaviru for the 2nd respondent

N/A for the exparte applicant

N/A for the 1st Respondent

Court Assistant: Mr Kombo