Athanas Obala Obango v Football Kenya Federation, Nick Mwendwa, Robert Muthomi & Attorney General [2016] KEHC 1330 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  376   OF 2016

IN THE MATER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE   TO COMMENCE JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 8 AND 9 OF THE LAW REFORM ACT CAP 26 LAWS OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR ORDERS OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION AND CERTIORARI

AND

IN THE MATTER OF: SPORTS ACT, 2013(ACT NO. 25 OF 2013, LAWS OF KENYA)

AND

IN THE MATTER OF; VIOLATION OF ARTICLES   27, 28, 32, 33, 36, 41 AND 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010

AND

IN THE MATTER OF: SUSPENSIONS OF ALL OFFICIALS  OF EXTREME  SPORTS  LTD FOR   PARTICIPATING IN SUPER 8  TOURNAMENTS AND  LEAGUES  FOR A PERIOD  OF SIX(6)  YEARS.

BETWEEN

ATHANAS OBALA OBANGO……………………...…….….......APPLICANT

AND

FOOTBALL KENYA FEDERATION………….......………....1ST RESPONDENT

NICK MWENDWA………………………………….………...2ND RESPONDENT

ROBERT MUTHOMI   ……………………………………….3RD RESPONDENT

THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL…………………..…...….4TH RESPONDENT

RULING

1. On 29th August 2016, the exparte applicant’s application dated 28th August 2015 was considered under certificate of urgency.  The court  certified  the matter as  urgent  and   directed  the exparte applicant to serve the respondents for interpartes  mention  on 1st September  2016  for further  orders/ directions.

2. On  1st September 2016, the matter came  up for  interpartes  mention upon which  the  respondent’s  counsel  indicated  to court  that the respondents  had no objection  to leave  to apply for Judicial Review  orders  being  granted  but that  nonetheless  the matter  was similar to HCC 216/2016  in Nairobi in a similar  matter.

3. However, the exparte  applicant’s  counsel  was quick to indicate  that the  High Court  suit  was  between  different  parties  although  the circumstances   were the same.

4. The court  did grant  leave  to apply for Judicial Review  orders sought  in the application dated  25th August  2016  and accorded  the exparte applicants 10 days within which to file the  substantive   motion.

5. On 15th September 2016, the exparte  applicant  brought  another application  by  way of  Notice of motion  under  Order  50 Rule 6  of the Civil Procedure  Rules  seeking for  enlargement  of time  within which the substantive  motion  seeking for Judicial Review  Orders, pursuant  to leave  to apply granted  on 1st September  2016  ought to  have  been filed.

6. That is the application subject of this ruling.  In the subject  application which is supported  by two affidavits  sworn by Eunice  Mukuvi Mutile  and  Grace Waringa   Muigai, the exparte  applicant  claims that the  time for filing of  the substantive  motion as per leave granted  on 1st September  2016  lapsed  on 13th September   2016.

7. That  although the substantive  motion  was drawn  expeditiously, the court  clerk committed an  inadvertent error on calculating the last day allowed for   filing and  presented  the Notice of Motion  to the registry  on 14th September   2016  for assessment  which was  a day after the last  date allowed  for filing of the  substantive motion.

8. That it was only after the clerk returned the assessed  documents  to the  office that  it  was discovered that  time  for filing  of the  motion had  lapsed, which delay   was not due to  any complacency, dilatoriness, laxity or indolence on the part of the  applicant  whose case it is  and who  deserves  to be heard  on merit  despite the  technical   inadvertent  error.

9. In addition, it  is contended that the enlargement  of time  will not  prejudice the respondents in  any way, whereas the denial  of the application  for enlargement  of time will prejudice   the applicant’s  expeditious  pursuit of a Judicial Review  of his   Constitutional rights and finally, that the application for  enlargement  of time   was filed with all haste and immediately  upon  discovery  of the error.

10. The  supporting affidavit  sworn by  Grace  Waringa  Muigai  advocate  explains  that she drew, signed  and handed  over to her  firm’s  court clerk  Eunice   Mukuvi  Mutile  the substantive  notice of  motion on 7th September  2016  and  instructed  her to take the motion to  court for assessment  of court fees for filing  as a matter of priority before  end  of that week being  9th September, 2016 in view of the  10 days  allowed; and that it  was not  until the 14th September  2016  when the file   was handed to the  advocate for  disbursement  of court  filing fees  that she discovered  that the clerk  had not  abided by the instructions  to  ensure  the motion  was filed within  the 10  days  granted by the court.

11. Further, that the clerk explained the inadvertent error in calculating the days.

12. The clerk  Eunice  Mukuvi  Mutile  has also   sworn an  affidavit   on  14th September  2016  explaining  her inadvertence that  caused  the delay in filing of the substantive   motion in that  she  did not  know  that Saturdays and Sundays  are to be  factored  in calculating  the days  allowed  for filing  or  complying  with the  order  of the court hence  she thought  that they had upto 16th September  2016  to file  the notice  of motion, which  misconception, she  did not  consult  her employer  advocate  to confirm, and  that therefore  she took to court the documents  for assessment  on 14th September  2016   and upon returning  them to the advocate, she discovered that the  time allowed  had expired the previous   day.

13. I have  carefully considered the application  dated  15th September  2016   by the exparte  applicant  seeking  for enlargement  of time within  which to file  substantive  notice of  motion seeking  for Judicial Review   orders pursuant  to the leave of court grated on 1st September  2016.

14. I have also considered the grounds and supporting affidavits and annextures thereto. The  record  as stated  earlier  shows that  on 1st September  2016  the exparte   applicant   was granted  leave to apply  for Judicial Review  Orders within 10 days  from that date.  However, by the  last day  which  was  13th September 2016 and since   12th September 2016 was a public holiday  the application had not been filed  because the clerk  who was  assigned  to cause  the assessment  of court fees  and submit  it for filing   miscalculated the days for the filing  of the motion.  That she believed that the Saturdays and Sundays are not to be   considered in computation of justice.

15. With utmost  respect  to the advocate  for the exparte   applicant, I am  not persuaded  that the reasons  for the delay   in filing  of the substantive  motion have been  candidly  explained to the satisfaction  of this  court.

16 Furthermore, the advocate’s affidavit  largely contradicts  that of her court  clerk  in that whereas  the advocate claims  that she  handed  her clerk  the motion  for assessment  of fees for filing  on  7th September  2016   which  was  a Wednesday   and to ensure  the filing   was  done by 9th September  2016   which  was a Friday, the clerk Ms  Eunice  Mukuvi  Mutile  deposes  in her  affidavit  that she  received  the motion  for filing   in the High Court by close  of Friday  2nd September  2016  as a matter of  priority  but that she miscalculated  the days  and believed that they had up to Friday  16th September  2016  to file the notice of motion and therefore  only presented  the motion for assessment  of court filing  fees  on 14th September 2016   and that upon  her return  to the office  is when  it  was discovered  that time  had expired.

17. Enlargement  of time is in the discretion  of the court as  stipulated  in Order 50 Rule  6 of the  Civil Procedure  Rules.

18. In Judicial Review proceedings, time is of essence and any delay on the part of the party seeking Judicial Review orders loses the discretion of the court.

19. In addition, ignorance in calculating days for filing of documents is ignorance of the legal provisions which is no defence.

20. This court  cannot  excuse  ignorance  of clear   provisions of the law  in calculating  the days for filing  of the  substantive  motion, which  is not  a technical  or procedural  error, excusing ignorance  of how  days  are calculated  is excusing  ignorance  of the law  which the  court is not  permitted to.

21. From the affidavit of Eunice Mukuvi, it is clear that she has worked with the applicant’s advocate for a period   of 3 years and not a new clerk.

22. Nonetheless, it is the responsibility of the exparte   applicant’s counsel to diligently instruct her staff on how to handle client’s matters, in accordance   with the law.

23.  From the sworn affidavits, I do not find that the applicant’s counsel acted diligently.  She acted  hand’s  off the  matter, leaving  it in the  control of  her clerk  and that is  the very  reason why the two supporting  affidavits   materially  differ   on the dates when instructions  were given   to the clerk to deal  with  the matter.

24. In addition, in Judicial  Review  proceedings, although a party is granted  a period within which  to file  the substantive  motion upon leave  being granted, there is not  so much  documentation required at  the later  stage for reasons  that the  applicant, upon obtaining  leave, is  only  expected  to file a notice  of motion  stipulating  the substantive prayers   for Judicial Review  orders.  The supporting documentation are those  that are  used in applying for  leave  which are: The statutory statement, the  verifying  affidavit  and exhibits; which need not be replicated  save for  purposes of  service upon the  respondents.  It therefore  follows that the  advocate   was expected to ensure that by  2nd September  2016   when she   was  extracting  the order for leave, the substantive  motion is  ready  for filing, and not  to wait  until towards  the end of the  10 days  timeline   is when she rushes to file   the documents.  The conduct  of the exparte  applicant’s  counsel does not  entitle the applicant  the discretion  of the court, even if  the application  was   prosecuted   exparte  after the  respondents   were served   but  failed to file  any response   thereto.

25. Counsels who take instructions from their clients to provide legal representation must act diligently or be prepared to face the consequences of their inaction.  It is not  in every  case that  mistake of  counsel will  be excused  because  the case  belongs to the client  who is  innocent.

26 Advocates take out professional indemnity insurance covers against professional negligence in the event that their clients claim for damages for professional negligence.  This is one of  those  cases  where this  court cannot  accept the casual  manner  in which   the advocate  handled  the matter, for the  advocate  to ride  on the discretion of the  court.

27. Nonetheless, this is a court of justice and the court shall not allow the conduct of the advocate to fetter its discretion in dispensing justice to the party affected, and who had no role to play in the delay.

28. I have  examined  the principal  complaint  by the exparte  applicant  and note that  it relates  to his employment  with super  and soccer, and that  the alleged   actions  by the respondents  are likely  to adversely  affect  the applicant’s  employment  and livelihood   unless  those actions  are checked  by the court.

29. In addition, I find no prejudice that will be occasioned to the respondents if time for filing of the substantive motion to challenge their impugned decision is granted to the applicant.

30. As the application for enlargement of time was filed without  inordinate   delay,  I hereby allow the application and order that  the period originally granted  for the  filing of  substantive  motion  shall be  enlarged by a further 5 days  from the date hereof. In default, the order for enlargement lapses. Costs of the application shall be in the cause.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 12th day of October 2016.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE