Gilbert K. Mutai, Beatrice Chepkurui, Geoffrey Sigei, Leonard Chepkwony & Edwin Kimutai Maritim v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior & Co-ordination of National Government, Inspector General of Police, Attorney General & County Government of Bomet [2019] KEHC 49 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT BOMET

PETITION NO. 6 OF 2019

GILBERT K. MUTAI .............................................................1ST PETITIONER

BEATRICE CHEPKURUI....................................................2ND PETITIONER

GEOFFREY SIGEI .............................................................. 3RD PETITIONER

LEONARD CHEPKWONY...................................................4TH PETITIONER

EDWIN KIMUTAI MARITIM..............................................5TH PETITIONER

-VERSUS-

CABINET SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR & CO-ORDINATION

OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT........................................1STRESPONDENT

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE....................2ND RESPONDENT

HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL..........................................3RD RESPONDENT

COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF BOMET......................... 4TH RESPONDENT

RULING

1. This matter came up  in court yesterday 2nd  October 2019 for mention for directions, having been filed during the vacation and placed then before the Judge at Naivasha, who referred the file to Bomet.

2. When the matter was mentioned before me yesterday, Ms. Chepkemoi counsel for the petitioners asked for grant of interim orders as requested in prayer 2 of the application dated 29th August 2019 and that their matter be consolidated with Bomet High Court Petition No. 4 of 2019 already fixed for hearing on 6th November 2019.  Mr. Koech for the 4threspondent,  in his response, said that his client had a minimal role in the matter and that the actions complained of were conceived, notices issued and implemented by organs of the National Government, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents, who in their wisdom had already closed the businesses.  He asked for time 14 days to file a response for the 4th respondent.

3. In response, counsel for the petitioners agreed that the respondents be allowed to respond and explain their position, but urged that the court issues interim orders.

4. With regard to consolidating this matter with the other petition slated for hearing on 6th November 2019, I will not consolidate the two matters at this time, as I do not have the other file, and cannot be certain if there might be any objection to the request by parties therein.  I will only fix this petition for mention on 06/11/19, and the issue of consolidation will be dealt with on that day.

5. As regards, the request of 4th respondent for 14 days to file their response, the same has not been objected to.  I will grant the request.

6. I now turn to the interim orders sought.  It is actually prayer (b) of the application dated 29th August, 2019.  It states as follows:

“b) That the respondents hereon jointly and severally be and are hereby restrained and/or stopped by themselves, agents, servants, assigns or representatives from arresting, charging in court, harassing, interfering and stopping the applicants from carrying on their business pending hearing and determination of this application”.

7. The application is actually  an interlocutory application to a Petition filed on same date 29th August,2019, which is yet to be fixed for hearing. When the counsel for the 4th respondent stated that the businesses were already closed, counsel for the applicants/petitioners did not say anything on that submission. I expected her to clarify the actual status position as at now.

8. I cannot go into the merits of this application now as it was not for hearing today. I however, find it inappropriate to issue the interim orders sought now, until the application is fixed for hearing, and all parties served with a hearing notice which has not happened, as  prayer (b) is the main prayer in the application. In my view, issuing the interim orders sought therein will be a final determination of the application before fixing it for hearing, which his wrong.

9. I thus order as follows:

1. The respondents are granted 14 days from today to file responses to the application.

2. This matter will be mentioned on 6th November 2019 with Bomet Petition No. 4 of 2019 to consider consolidation of the two matters.

3. In the meantime, I decline to grant the main prayer in the application dated 29/8/2019  at this mention stage.

Dated at Bomet this 3rd October, 2019.

GEORGE DULU

JUDGE