GEOFFREY NGANGA NYOIKE,PETER MBURU NGUGI & HOSEA MUTHAMA vNAIVASHA LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL [2011] KEHC 166 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

ATNAKURU

HCC JUDICIAL REVIEW NO 56 of 2011

GEOFFREY NGANGA NYOIKE

PETER MBURUNGUGI &

HOSEA MUTHAMA……………….........................………………..APPLICANTS

VERSUS

NAIVASHA LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL……......................…RESPONDENT

R U L I N G

By the Chamber Summons dated 9/5/2011, the applicants PeterMburu Ngugi, Geoffrey   Nganga Nyoike and Hosea  Muthama

seek the leave of the court to applyfor an order of Certiorari to remove into the High Court andquash the proceedings and award   of the Naivasha Land Disputes Tribunal dated 15/3/2011, in Tribunalcase no 139/09. They   also seek an order that the leave do operate as stay of the decree in Naivasha Misc Civil application no 38/2010 given on 1st April 2011.

Theapplication   is supported by a statement dated 9/5/2011 and a verifying affidavitsworn by Peter Mburu Ngugi on the same date. He also filed a supplementary affidavitin reply   to the replying affidavit  sworn by Interested Party.

When Mr Mwaniki, Counsel for the applicantappeared before Justice Ouko on 10/5/2011, the Judge directed counsel to servethe application so that the Chamber Summons application can be heard inter partes.

Some Interested Parties filed a reply to this application but the court did not  hear them because under Order 53, it is the Notice of Motion that is served and all persons interested or those that may be affected by the court’s  orders in a Judicial Review application. At the leave stage, only the Respondent should be served. That is why the   Interested partieshave no   audience at this stage.

The Respondent did not appear and the hearing proceeded ex parte. Only the DC Naivasha was served on behalf of the Land Disputes Tribunal. The Principal Magistrate’s Court was not served.

I have considered the application and in my view, it is incompetent and offends provisions of Order  53 Civil Procedure Rules. Order 53 rule 1(2) requires an applicant to file a Chamber Summons application accompaniedby a statutory   statement and verifying affidavit. It is the verifying   affidavitthat contains   the facts that verify the statement . I am guided by  the Court of Appeal decision   inCOMMISSIONER GENERAL KRA VRS SILVANO ONEMA OWAKI MISC A 39/1999,in which the court   discussed   Order 53 Rule 1(2) CPR. The court said:-

“ we would observe that it is the verfying affidavit not the

Statement to be verified  , which is of evidential value in an application for Judicial Review. That appears to be the meaningof Rule 1(2) of order 53Rule 2. This positionis confirmed by the following passages from  the Supreme Court Practice 1976 Vol 1 at paragraph 53/117:

“Theapplication   for leave “ By   a statement” in the affidavit (see RV WANDSWORTH JJ ex P Read (1942) K.R .281) “ The   statement should contain nothing more than the name and description of  the applicant, the relief sought, and the grounds   on which it is sought it is not correct to lodge a statement of all the facts, verified by an affidavit”

In the instant case, the verifyingaffidavit filed in support of the Chamber Summons is four paragraphed   and does not contain any facts. Instead the facts are contained at paragraph 3 of the statement. The want of facts to support   the applicationrenders the whole application incompetent .

At a cursory  look at the application, the parties to this application  are not disclosed. In the case of FARMERS BUS SERVICES VRS TRANSPORT LICENSING APPEAL TRIBUNAL (1959) EA 779, the   East African Court   of Appeal set out the   format ofa Judicial Review application both at the leave  stage and the Notice of Motion of Stage. That has become the practiceand was adopted in the case of JOTHAM MULATI  WELAMONDI VRS CHAIRMAN ELECTORAL COMMISSIONOF KENYA (2002) 1KLR 486, where Justice Ringera struck   out   a Judicial Review   application   for being incompetent and went ahead to set out the format of a Judicial Review   applications both at leave and  Notice of Motion stage. The application before the Court is incompetent and this Courtfinds   no need to consider the merits. It is hereby struck out with costs.

DATED THIS 22nd DAY OF JUNE 2011

RPV WENDOH

JUDGE

PRESENT

MS Maija holdingbrief for Mwaniki

N/A For defendant

CC: Kennedy Oguma