Mimosa Vile Limited v Kenya Forest Service, OCPD Karen Police Station & Deputy County Commissioner Langata [2016] KEHC 1356 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  342 OF 2016

IN THE MATER OF AN APPLICATION BY MIMOSA VILE LIMITED FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW    ORDERS OF PROHIBITION

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010

BETWEEN

MIMOSA VILE LIMITED …………………………………...…….APPLICANT

AND

KENYA FOREST SERVICE   ……………………………..1ST RESPONDENT

OCPD KAREN POLICE STATION …………….................2ND RESPONDENT

DEPUTY COUNTY COMMISSIONER LANGATA…....….3RD RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

1. On  2nd August  2016, Honourable  Lenaola  J did  consider  the exparte    applicant’s  application  dated  2nd August  2016  and granted prayer  No. 2  which is the  prayer for leave to  apply for  Judicial Review orders of prohibition to prohibit the respondents  whether  by themselves  or any  of  its  officers, agents  from unlawfully interfering, arresting, harassing, intimating   and /or  destroying property  in relation to all that  parcel of land known as  LR  No.  20842 situated in Karen.

2. As regards prayer  No. 3  which sought  that the leave  granted does operate as a stay  of any intended   proceedings   against  the applicant  with regard to the said   LR  20842, the learned  judge  directed the applicant to reconsider it.  Thereafter  the applicant amended  the chamber  summons  and on 3rd August the  learned Judge gave interpartes   hearing  for  18th August  2016.

3. The parties  appeared before me  on  7th September  2016  and I directed  the applicant to serve the 2nd and  3rd  respondents  for interpartes  hearing  of prayer  No. 3 in   the amended  chamber summons.

4. Today,  the 1st respondent  and applicant’s  counsels  have appeared  and argued  the said prayer  No. 3  as per  the amended  chamber summons.

5. But  before  I delve  into the arguments  for and  against that  prayer seeking to  restrain the respondents  from interfering with the applicant’s  quiet  possession of the suit premises LR  20842, I must   settle the  curious  question as to whether  that prayer  as sought  is available  to the applicant at the moment.  I say so for reasons  that on  2nd August   2016, Honourable  Lenaola J  having granted  prayer No. 1  which  sought for  leave to apply for Judicial  Review Orders, it is expected that notwithstanding  the pendency  of the prayer  for stay, the applicant should have  proceeded  to file the  substantive  motion  within the  period of 21  days as  stipulated in Order  53   Rule  3(1) of  the Civil Procedure  Rules  which  stipulate that:

“ 3(1) when leave  has been granted to apply for an order for mandamus, prohibition or certiorari, the application shall  be made within  21 days  by notice of  motion  to the High Court, and there shall, unless the judge granting  leave  has otherwise directed, be  at least  eight  clear days  between the service   of the notice of motion  and the  day named therein for the hearing.”

6. Order  53  Rule  (4) gives  the judge considering  the application for  leave  to either  grant leave and also order  that such   leave to operate  as stay  or to grant leave  and order that the prayer for stay  be considered  interpartes, and  that is the position  taken  by Honourable  Lenaola J when he granted leave   on 2nd  August  2016  and also directed on 3rd  August  2016  that the   prayer for  stay be  considered  interpartes  on  18th August   2016  before the Judicial  Review  Division.

7. The applicant, regrettably, has not filed the  substantive   motion and neither  does the  record  show that  such motion  was ever  filed  within  the  21 days   provided for  in Order  53   Rule  3(1)  of the Civil Procedure Rules.

8. In my  humble view, without the substantive   motion being filed, and  as the leave   granted  to apply made on  2nd August  2016   effectively lapsed  on 24th  August   2016, this court  will be  embarking on a frolic  and on an unnecessary  and vain venture  if it  was to consider the merits of the application for stay pending  nothing, as there is not even an  application for enlargement  of time within which the substantive  motion should have been   filed.

9.  Stay order   cannot exist  on their  own without  the substantive motion  since leave  granted did  expire  after  the lapse  of 21 days   of issue.

10. Accordingly, I find the application herein for stay unwarranted and unsupported.  I dismiss it without orders for costs.

Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi in open court  this 11th day of October, 2016.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of

Mr Simiyu for the applicant

Mr Kagema H/B for Keige for the 1st Respondent

CA: Adline