Empowerment Organization v Nairobi City County & Chief Officer Trade, Industrialization & Tourism Nairobi County [2016] KEHC 1263 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  543   OF 2016

IN THE MATER OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

AND

FREEDOMS   UNDER ARTICLES  27,32,35,36,42,43,47,48,50 & 165   OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA  2010

AND

IN THE MATTER   OF CONTRAVENTION TO RIGHT TO FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION,  EQUALITY  AND FREEDOM,

HUMAN  DIGNITY  AND ECONOMIC  AND SOCIAL  RIGHTS & IN  THE MATTER  OF  RIGHT  TO EQUALITY

AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY   FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

AND

IN THE MATTER OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE

AND

IN THE MATTER IF ULTRAVIRES, PREJUDICIAL, UNWARRANTED, ILLEGAL DENIAL OF AN ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

AND

IN THE MATTER OF NAIROBI COUNTY EXHIBITIONS AND BUSINESS COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT ORGANIZATION

LUSSIA MAGGY (SUING ON BEHALF OF AND AS THE CHAIRPERSON

OF NAIROBI COUNTY EXHIBITIONS & BUSINESS COMMUNITY

EMPOWERMENT  ORGANIZATION…………....…………………...APPLICANT

VERSUS

NAIROBI CITY COUNTY……..…………………………..….1ST RESPONDENT

CHIEF OFFICER TRADE, INDUSTRIALIZATION &

TOURISM NAIROBI COUNTY……………………………...2ND RESPONDENT

R  U  L  I  N  G

1. By a chamber  summons  dated  8th  November  2016   and  filed in court  on the same day under certificate  of  urgency, pursuant  to the provisions  of  Order  53 Rule  1  of the Civil Procedure   Rules,  the Law Reform Act Cap  26  Laws of Kenya  and all other  enabling  provisions  of the law, the exparte  applicants Lussia  Maggy ( on behalf of  and as the  chairperson of Nairobi County Exhibition and Business Community  Empowerment  Organization (NCEBCEO) seeks  from the court   orders that:

1. Spent

2. That owing to the urgency of this matter service to the Registrar be dispensed with in the first instance.

3. That this Honourable court  be pleased  to grant leave  to the applicant  for an order  of prohibition –directed towards  the respondents  prohibiting  them, their  servants, agents, anyone claiming   under or  through   them from  revoking  the permit, ejecting, interfering  with the  applicant’s   quiet   possession  or any  act of compelling  the applicants  from occupying  the suit premises  known as (zone 7 along  Moi Avenue known as Gill House for the purpose of conducting  trade  fair) herein;

4. That the said  order to operate as  stay towards further actions  or  inactions  of the respondent, their servants, agents or anyone  claiming  through  or under  them from interfering  with the applicants right to carry out  the  business  at Zone  7  along Moi Avenue   known as Gill House.

5. That costs   of this application be provided for.

2. The chamber  summons was premised  on the statutory  statement  which gives  15 grounds  upon which the relief   is sought, the  exparte applicant’s supporting affidavit  and annextures  thereto.

3. The respondents who are  the Nairobi  City County and the  Chief Officer Trade, Industrialization & Tourism Nairobi County filed a  replying affidavit sworn by Joshua  Otieno  the Assistant Director Markets in opposing   the  chamber summons  seeking for leave  and the prayer that leave is  granted  do operate as stay.

4. The application  was heard  on 15th November  2016  by way of oral submissions  with Mr  Odhiambo  urging  the application on behalf  of the  exparte  applicants   whereas  Mr Abwao  represented  the respondents.

5. The exparte  applicants case is that  they are  a  registered  community   based organization  duly registered  on 25th August  2015. That on 7th May  2015 they applied to the respondents for  consideration and the be permitted  to occupy zone  7  of Moi Avenue  at Gill House  for the purpose of carrying  out Trade  Fair Exhibition.

6. That  the  respondents  agreed to grant  the permission  sought, vide letter dated  12th January  2016  provided  certain  conditions were met  by the applicants.  That upon fulfillment of the aforesaid conditions, the applicants paid kshs   32,000 as fee for the reserved parking for the said space for the said Trade fair exhibition.  That the  applicants  then took possession  of the said  space until recently  when a  different  faction, through  their agents, servants of the respondents  threatened to evict  them and the applicants  had to flee for their   lives  in fear  of physical  confrontation.

7. That the respondents, their servants, agents, persons claiming  through or under  them  soon after  issuing  the  applicant  with the permit  to commence  the said  business  have continued   with  prejudice, malice and without  providing  any reasons  to threaten  to evict, harass  the applicant, her servants  or  agents.

8. That no explanation was given for the respondents’   actions and that recently in the month of October 2016(sic) the said applicants   came across an internal memo by the respondents of withdrawing or cancelling of Trade Fairs Permits.

9. That the respondents are  acting  maliciously,  infringing  the applicant’s right  to  equality  by purporting  to have cancelled  the said  Trade Fair  permits in  general but prejudicially  authorizing   other factions to continue  with the same  trade  within the CBD.

10. That  the above  action  was done  hurriedly, with prejudice and malice  and  that the said  information  was negligently  withheld from the applicants.

11. That  there is no just  cause in  granting  permits to other factions and yet  decline  to issue  permits  to the applicants,  which is  discriminatory.

12. That the above action enables an unlawful illegal faction to threaten  the safety  and fundamental  rights  of the applicants’ group whenever  they tried to occupy  the said   space  to carry out  their  business  activities.

13. That an unknown faction has been authorized by the respondents  to carry out business   on the said  premises   yet they collected  a free from the  applicants, and that  it is in the  interest of  justice  that this application is allowed to avoid the respondents trampling  on the applicants’ rights to economic activities, freedom  of association, right to fair administrative  action, and  access to information  which are  fundamental  rights  under the  Constitution.

14. The supporting  affidavit   of Lussia  Maggy  reiterates the above   grounds  and annexes  the exhibits  referred to  in the  grounds  upon which he relief is sought.

15. In the respondents’ replying  affidavit  of Joshua  Otieno,   the respondents’   case is that  the applicants  applied for  a permit  to conduct  a Trade Fair  on the suit  premises  on specific  dates of  5th-7th February  2016.  That the 2nd respondents’ Department had no objection to the permit subject to the applicants fulfilling the following conditions.

i. Clearance from the Chief Officer, security compliance and disaster management in writing.

ii. Getting clearance from the Chief   Revenue Officer, indicating availability of space in writing, among others.

16. That the applicants   herein  were  granted  the permit to hold  the  trade fair  on the named dates  5th-7th  February  2016  along Gill House  as applied  for and therefore  their  goods could not have  been confiscated between  5th and   7th February  2016   but on the subsequent  weeks when the applicants tried to remain in the premises/space without  obtaining  the prerequisite  permit.

17. That in any event the amount paid covered the period of the Trade Fair 5th- 7th February 2016 but not perpetual and or  on subsequent weekends.

18. That upon advise from the National Government, the respondents   stopped   issuing permits for trade fairs due to the security concerns.

19. That the space  in question  is used  by matatus    plying   Ngong  Road  and Jogoo Road  and that it is   risky to  allow business   of trade fairs  and matatus at the same place as  space is unavailable  for all  including  pedestrians  and private  vehicles.

20. That the applicants may have operated outside   the permitted areas leading to confiscation of their wares in accordance   with the City by Laws.

21. That the  respondents  would only  allow usage of the said space for trade fairs during weekends   because it is used  as parking  zone, loading  zone and matatu terminal  during  week days and no clearance   from the Chief  Revenue  Officer  has been obtained  to allow the applicants  into the spaces in issue.

22. That this application is an abuse of the court process   in that the applicants   are guilty of a multiplicity of suits seeking the same orders namely CMCC 5776/2016    between the same parties hereto over the same subject matter.

23. The respondents annexed exhibits and urged the court to dismiss the applicant’s chamber summons dated 8th November 2016.

24. In their oral submissions to support their respective rival positions, counsels for the parties reiterated   what is contained in the chamber summons and replying affidavit.

25. Mr Odhiambo  on behalf of the applicants emphasized  that the respondents’  actions  are prejudicial   to the rights   and freedoms   and interests   of the exparte applicants  herein  who are  citizens   of small  means  and that some  of them had taken loans to finance   the Trade  Fairs in different areas of the Central Business District (CBD) of Nairobi City County. Further, that the respondents’  malice and impartiality  is evident  as there are other Trade  Exhibitors  along Moi  Avenue  hence it is unfair  to interfere  with the  applicants’  businesses.

26. In opposition, Mr Abwao  relying  on the respondent’s replying  affidavit   emphasized  that the  applicants  were granted the  permit for the days  5th-7th  February  2016  and that the  said Trade fairs  went on  as scheduled.

27. That thereafter, the National Government  advised  the County Government that it  was  a security risk to allow trade fairs  in the CBD  and as a result, the County  Government  stopped  issuing  any permits   for exhibitions  in the CBD after 12th March  2016.

28. Further, that there  are several  other cases   as cited  above pending  in the lower court  over the  same subject   matter  between  these same  parties   hence the  applicants  have not  come to this  court with  clean hands.  Mr Abwao urged this court to decline to grant any leave to the applicants.

29. Ina  brief  rejoinder, Mr Odhiambo submitted that  the applicants  seek  the right to equality  to be  applied to them since  there are  other  exhibitions  going on.  He stated  that  his clients  had vacated  the space  and that they  are  not privy  to the letter  from the  Minister  of Sports  on security  matters.  Counsel   also stated that  he  was not aware  of the  multiple   suits   cited by the  respondents  and contended   that  he had  only seen the allegations in the  replying  affidavit filed  by the  respondents.

Determination

30. I have carefully  considered  this  chamber summons  dated  8th November 2016, the statutory statement, the supporting  affidavit, the respondent’s  replying  affidavit  and the respective  parties’  advocates oral  submissions  made on  15th November  2016.  None of the parties relied on any authority.

31. I observe that  the application   for leave to apply and for  judicial review orders and for leave to operate as stay was argued as if it is a substantive motion on merits.

32. None  of the parties   relied on the established  principles   applicable for grant of leave to apply for Judicial Review  remedies(orders)  and or  for stay  of the  implementation of  the decision  or  for grant of conservatory orders pending hearing  and determination  of  the substantive  motion once  filed.

33. Leave to apply for  Judicial Review  orders is  discretionary  and not  automatic and in considering such  application for leave, the  court  must  be careful  in what  it states lest  it touch  on the merits  of the main  application for  Judicial Review.  Therefore, where  the outcome  of the Judicial Review  might be  contrary  to the conclusion  reached  by the  body or  person whose  decision is challenged, stay of  proceedings should be  granted as it  might  lead  to an awkward  situation where a  decision  which ought not to  have been made  has been concluded,  as  was held  in Jared Benson Kangwana Vs Attorney General Nairobi HCC  446/1995.

34. The requirement  for leave, however, was explained  by the three judge  bench  of the High Court composed  of Bosire, Mbogholi Msagha and Oguk JJ in Matiba  V Attorney General Nairobi  HCC Miscellaneous  Application  790/1993  wherein  the court  held that  the requirement for leave it is supposed  to exclude  frivolous or vexatious applications  which prima  facie, appear  to be abuse of  the process of the  court or those applications  which  are  statute barred.  In Republic Vs Land Disputes Tribunal  Court Central  Division & Another  exparte Nzioka [2006]  1 EA 321 Nyamu J (as he then was) held that leave  should be   granted if, on the material  available  the court considers, without  going into the matter in-depth, that there is an arguable  case for  granting  leave  and that leave   stage is a filter  whose purpose  is to  weed  out  hopeless   cases at the earliest  possible  time,  thus saving the  pressure  on the  courts  and needless   expenses  for the applicant  by allowing   malicious  and  futile  claims to be weeded out   or eliminated  so as to  prevent   public bodies being  paralyzed for  months, because of pending  court action  which might  turn out  to be unmeritorious. A similar decision was reached in Republic Vs The Permanent   Secretary, Ministry of Planning and National Development Exparte Kaimenyi [2006) 1 EA 353.

35. In Republic Vs County Council of Kwale & Another  Exparte  Kondo & 57 Others Mombasa HCC Miscellaneous   Application No. 384  of  1996, Waki  J ( as he then  was )  held:

“ The  purpose  of application for  leave   to apply  for Judicial  Review is firstly to eliminate at an early  stage any applications  for Judicial  Review  which are  either  frivolous, vexatious  or hopeless  and secondly  to ensure  that the applicant  is only  allowed to  proceed to  substantive  hearing   of the court  is satisfied  that there  is a case  fit for  further  consideration.  The requirement that leave   must be  obtained  before making an application for Judicial Review   is designed  to prevent  the time of the court being  wasted by busy bodies  with  misguided or trivial complaints  or  administrative   error, and  to remove the  uncertainty in  which public officers and authorities might be left as to whether they could safely proceed with  administrative action while  proceedings  for Judicial  Review  of it  were actually pending even though misconceived …..  Leave  may only be granted  therefore if  on the material  available  the court is  of the view, without  going into   the matter in depth,  that there  is an arguable  case for  granting the relief  claimed by  the applicant, the test  being whether   there is  a case  fit for  further investigation at a  full inter parties hearing of the substantive application for Judicial Review.  It is an exercise of the court’s discretion but as   always it has to be exercised judicially.”

36. The above  position  was confirmed  by the Court of Appeal  in the case ofMeixner & Another Vs Attorney General [2005]  2 KLR 189where the court held that  leave of the court is a  pre-requisite  to making  a substantive  Judicial Review  application and that the  purpose of the leave  is to filter out frivolous applications  hence the granting of leave  or otherwise  involves  an  exercise  of  judicial discretion.

37. In Mirugi Kariuki V Attorney General CA  70/91  [1992] KLR  8 the Court of Appeal  laid down the grounds that should guide  the court in  granting  leave to  apply for Judicial Review  and stated:

“ If he  ( the  applicant ) fails to  show, when  he applies  for leave, a prima facie  case, on reasonable grounds  for believing  that  there has been  a failure  of public duty, the  court  would  be  in error  if it  granted leave.  The curb represented  by the need  for  the applicant  to show, when  he seeks  leave to apply, that he  has a  case, is an  essential protection  against  abuse of   the legal  process, it  enables  the court  to prevent  abuse by busy  bodies, cranks  and other   mischief- makers…”

38. In Re Bivac International SA (Bureau Veritas) [2005] 2 EA 43.  The High Court of Kenya stated:

“ Application for leave  to apply  for orders  of Judicial Review  are  normally  exparte  and such  an application  does  restrict  the court to threshold  issues  namely, whether  the applicant  has an arguable case, and whether  if leave  is granted, the   same should  operate as stay.”

Whereas  Judicial Review  remedies  are  at the end  of the day   discretionary,  that  discretion  is a  judicial discretion  and,  for this  reason a court has to explain how the discretion, if any,  was exercised  so that  all the parties  are aware of the factors  which led  to the exercise of the court’s  discretion.  There should be an arguable case which  without delving  into the details could succeed and an  arguable case is s not ascertained by  the court  by losing  a coin or  waving  a magic   wand or raising a green flag, the ascertainment of an  arguable case  which without  delving  into the  details  could succeed  and an  arguable   case is not  ascertained  by the court  by losing  a coin or waving a magic wand or raising a green flag, the ascertainment of an arguable case is an intellectual  exercise in this  fast growing area  of the law  and one has to consider  without  making any  findings, the  scope  of the Judicial Review remedy sought, the grounds and the  possible  principles of administrative law involved  and not forget  the ever  expanding  frontiers  of Judicial Review  and perhaps give an applicant  his day in court  instead  of denying  him….. Although  leave  should  not be  granted as a matter of routine, where  one is  in doubt  one has  to consider  the wise  words  of Megary J in the case of John V Rees  [1970] Ch 345 at  402.  In the exercise of the discretion on whether or not to grant stay, the court takes into account the needs of good administration.”

39. From the decisions and   principles espoused hereinabove, it is clear to this court that the grant of leave to institute Judicial Review proceedings is not a mere formality and that leave is not granted as a matter of course.  The  applicant seeking  leave is under  an obligation  to show  to the court  that  he has  a prima facie  arguable  case for grant  of leave.  And whereas  at this stage   he is not  required  to delve  into the  depths of  the merits of the application, he  has to show  that  he has  not come  to court  after  inordinate  delay  and that  the  application is not  frivolous, vexatious, malicious, futile  and  or abuse  of the court process.

40. Applying the above principles to this case, the exparte  applicant by their chamber  summons  dated  8th November  2016   claim that   although  they applied  for permission to hold  exhibitions at the reserved  parking  at Gill House   and paid shs  34,000, the respondents and some   faction  of the applicants  threatened  the applicants  with eviction  and thereby  caused fear among   the applicants  who had   to leave  the said premises  and that the  respondents  now purport  to have stopped  to issue  any Trade  Fair permits  to any prospective exhibitors because of security  reasons  as advised   by the Ministry of Sports,  yet there  are other  factions  carrying out Trade Fairs in the same space. The annextures LM7 annexed to the  affidavit  in support of the  chamber  summons show  payment  for shs  32,200 on 21s  January  2015  for reserved  parking along  Moi Avenue  Gill House  & Development  House for 5th  February-7th February  2016.

41. According  to the  respondents, the  applicants   were granted  a permit   and they did   hold the  trade  fair for  the named  dates of 5th -7th February, 2016 after which  they  were  expected to vacate  as the permit  was not permanent  but for  those  two days.  Further, that  trade fairs are  only permitted  during  weekends  in those  reserved parking  spaces  and not  on a daily  basis.  And that the  exhibitions  were approved  vide letter of   12th January  2016   after which  the respondents received  a letter from  the  National  Government  Ministry  of Sports, Culture  and  Arts, advising  against  future events  in the CBD which   they considered  a security  risk hence  from March 2016, the respondents stopped  issuing  such permits.

42. The  substantive  prayer for the  applicants  is leave to apply for Judicial Review orders of prohibition to prohibit the respondents, their servants  agents  or anyone  claiming under  or through them from revoking the permit, ejecting, interfering  with the applicants’   quiet  possession or any act of compelling the  applicants   from occupying  the suit premises  known as   zone 7  along Moi   Avenue  known as  Gill House  for the purpose  of conducting  trade fair  herein.

43. However, from the affidavit evidence, there is   nothing to show that the applicants were granted or that they hold   a valid permit to conduct the trade fairs, for the respondent to be said to be threatening to revoke, and or for the respondents to be prohibited from evicting the applicants from the stated space. The permit   granted  as per the letter of  12th January  2016   and payment  of  21st  July  2015(sic) lasted  for the events  of  5th-7th  February  2016.   There is no other permit or payment made thereafter.

44. In addition, this court will be issuing orders of leave in vain in that what is sought to be prohibited does not exist.  The applicants are not on site and neither are they complaining in their application   that they were denied a permit, which is not the case here. And if they were denied a permit, only mandamus would issue to compel issuance thereof. That being the case, an order of prohibition would be futile.

45. Furthermore, this application was filed after nearly 9 months from February 2016 when the applicants first got the permit to exhibit their wares.  Although an order of  prohibition  is not limited by statute, but the delay in applying for leave  to apply  and in referring  in the supporting  affidavit  as  “ until recently,”  without  demonstrating  that the applicants   were if  at  all on the  premises  after  7th February  2016  and or that they  were evicted  there from or denied entry  thereto  on a specific date , in my humble view, the applicants are simply  throwing  the dice  at this court.

46. Further, the respondent have sworn  an affidavit    detailing that this  application is an abuse of the court process  because there are pending before the subordinate court two civil  suits instituted  by the same  applicants and  over the same subject  matter  between  the same parties.  The response by the applicant’s counsel was that he is not aware of those cases.  That    deposition by the respondents was accordingly not rebutted.

47. There  was also no evidence of bias  as alleged  that other  factions  are operating   from the same  space  and even if  that were to be the case, there is no  evidence that  there  was   discrimination  in issuing  permits  since there is  no subsequent application for  a permit by the  applicants  which has been rejected by the respondents.  Furthermore rejection of permit   cannot be challenged by way of a prohibition.

48. In the end, I find that the applicants herein have not  demonstrated  to the satisfaction of this  court that   they have  a prima facie  arguable  case against   the respondents  capable  of further consideration in depth at a  substantive  stage  and therefore to grant  them the leave  sought herein  is to  clog this  court with frivolous, vexatious claims  like the one  before me.

49. Accordingly,  I must decline  to exercise  the  judicial discretion  conferred on this court in  this matter  by dismissing  the Chamber Summons dated  8th November, 2016 which I hereby dismiss and order that each party bear their own costs of the application dated 8th November 2016.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 18th day of November, 2016.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of

N/A for Applicants

N/A for Respondents

CA: Adline