Republic of Kenya v Registrar of Societies Ex-Parte Joseph Ndemi Wanjiri, Luka Githinji Ndegwa, Godfrey Chege Muigai, Ann Ruth Wanjiku, Jackson Musyoka Juma (Being the Officials of Kawangware Market Development Society), Ann Njeri Waihumbu, Susan Nduta Ndungi, Martin Gacheru, Daniel Abea, Susan Nduta Kimani & Attorney General [2017] KEHC 6134 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.  319 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF SOCIETIES ACT CAP 108 LAWS OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE LAW REFORM ACT, CAP 26, LAWS OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF CMCC NO.64 OF 2010 BEFORE THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT NAIROBI

AND

IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION BY WAY  OF JUDICIAL  REVIEW PROCEEDINGS  FOR ORDERS   OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION  AND  CERTIORARI AGAINST THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES APPOINTED  UNDER CAP 108, LAWS  OF KENYA

BETWEEN

REPUBLIC OF KENYA………………..................................……………APPLICANT

AND

THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES…..............................…………….RESPONDENT

VERSUS

ANN NJERI WAIHUMBU……....………….........………...1ST INTERESTED PARTY

SUSAN NDUTA NDUNGI……......………........…………..2ND INTERESTED PARTY

MARTIN GACHERU……......………………........………..3RD INTERESTED PARTY

DANIEL ABEA………………......………...........................4TH INTERESTED PARTY

SUSAN NDUTA KIMANI…….……......…….......………...5TH INTERESTED PARTY

THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL….….............………...6TH INTERESTED PARTY

EX-PARTE/APPLICANTS

JOSEPH NDEMI WANJIRI………….……..........…......1ST EX-PARTE APPLICANT

LUKA GITHINJI NDEGWA ……….………....................2ND EX-PARTE APPLICANT

GODFREY CHEGE MUIGAI…….….………..............….3RD EX-PARTE APPLICANT

ANN RUTH WANJIKU…………….…............…………4TH EX-PARTE APPLICANT

JACKSON MUSYOKA JUMA……..…..........………....5TH EX-PARTE APPLICANT

BEING THE OFFICIALS OF KAWANGWAREMARKET DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY

RULING

1. By  a notice  of motion dated  22nd  July  2016  and  filed in court on the same day, the exparte  applicants  claiming to be  officials of the Kawangware Market Development Society  sought from  this court orders:

i. Spent

ii. That leave be and is hereby granted to the exparte  applicants  to apply for  an order of  certiorari   to remove   the  decision of the Registrar of Societies  given on  19th  April  2016 for purposes  of being   quashed.  The leave  so granted  do apply  as stay  of the said  decision;

iii. That  leave be and is  hereby granted  to the applicant   to apply for an order of mandamus and or prohibition  directing  the Registrar  of Societies  not to issue  and  or prohibiting him or her from issuing punitive directions against the exparte  applicants before the  dispute/complaint  on purported  elections  of  13th April  2016  is fully  heard  and determined.  The leave so granted does apply as stay of the purported elections.

iv. That this Honourable court be pleased to command the officer commanding Muthangari Police Station be ordered to provide security to ensure compliance with the orders of this Honourable court.

v. Spent

vi. That this Honourable court be pleased to make such other and or further orders that it may deem appropriate in the circumstances.

vii. Those costs of this application are provided for.

2. The  notice of motion  was based on the grounds  on the face  of the  motion, and  supported by  the affidavit  of Joseph  Ndemi  Wanjiru commissioned  on a photocopied  jurat  of  22nd  July  2016  and  a further  affidavit  by  the same  deponent sworn  on 15thAugust  2016   in response  to the interested party’s  replying   affidavit sworn on 5th August 2016 by Anne Njeri  Waihumbu.

3. The motion was  specifically brought under the provisions of Section 3,3A of the Civil Procedure Act and  Order  53   Rule  1,2, and  3  of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010  and all other enabling  powers  and  provisions of the law, as well as  in the matter of  the Societies Act, Cap 108  Laws of Kenya  and in the matter of the  Law Reform  Act Cap 26 Laws  of Kenya.

4. The court overtly  notes that  there  is no  statutory  statement   filed by  the exparte  applicant,  setting out  the  grounds  upon which the motion is predicated.  Secondly, the application is  originated  by notice of  motion and  not chamber summons  as stipulated  in Order  53  Rule  2  of the  Civil Procedure  Rules.  Nonetheless, this court is prepared to hold that  the filing  of a notice of  motion instead  of a chamber  summons  is only   but an  issue  of form and  not substance  and  is therefore  curable  by application of Article  159  of the Constitution.

5. However, on the issue of lack of a statutory statement, this court must establish whether the omission thereof is a mere   procedural technicality or whether it goes to the root of the matter thereby affecting the substance.

6. I find it  necessary  to highlight  this point  because this court is deemed to know  the law  and therefore it cannot be  clouded by the submissions of  parties, however persuasive, in arriving  at its  decision on the substance  of the proceedings.

7. Order 53  Rule 1  of the Civil Procedure  Rules which  is the procedure for  filing of  Judicial Review proceedings  and orders   for mandamus  prohibition  and certiorari  is clear that:

“ 53 (1)  No application for an order  of mandamus, prohibition  and  certiorari  shall be   made unless  leave  therefore  has been  granted  in accordance   with this rule;

(2)   An application for such leave  as aforesaid   shall be  made  exparte  to a judge  in chambers, and shall be  accompanied  by a statement setting out the name and  description  of the applicant, the  relief  sought, and  the grounds  on which  it is sought, and by  affidavits  verifying  the facts  relied on.”

8. From the above initial provisions of the Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, I can certify that leave application is the one subject of this ruling. However, the fact that Rule 2   is clear  that the application  must be accompanied by a statement setting out the name and description  of the applicant, the  relief sought, and the grounds on which  the relied  is sought and by  affidavits  verifying  the facts  relied on, then, in the absence  of a statutory statement and or  verifying  affidavit, the application would be   unsupported  and  would be  amenable  for  striking  out in limine.

9. In the present case, the application is accompanied by a supporting affidavit which is unnecessary and a verifying   affidavit.  However, on that fact alone, this court would not find the application incompetent.

10. The   big  question is lack of  a statutory  statement,  which in my humble view, is  a manifest vitiating  error of omission apparent  on the face of the record  and which  this court  cannot  ignore.

11. Furthermore, the fact that Section 12 of the Fair Administrative Action Act No. 4 of 2015 is clear that:  “12. This  Act is in addition to and not in derogation  from the general  principles  of common  law  and the  rules  of natural justice” means that  the new  law does not oust  the  provisions  of Order 53 of the Civil Procedure  Rules, since there  are  no regulations yet, promulgated under Section 13(1) (2)  of the Act.

12. 10. Order 53 Rules (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules is clear that the grounds upon which the Judicial Review application will be founded will be in the statutory statement. Further, Order 53 Rule 4 is clear that:

“4(1)  copies  of the statement  accompanying   the application for leave shall be served  with the  notice of motion  and copies of any affidavits accompanying  the  application for leave shall be supplied on demand and no grounds shall, subject as  hereafter in this rule provided, be relied upon or  any relief  sought at the hearing of the motion except  the grounds  and  relief  set out in the said  statement.”

13. From the above Rule 4(1), the applicant, once granted leave, is mandated to file the substantive motion and serve together with copies of the statement and verifying affidavits accompanying the application for leave.

14. The Rule also prohibits reliance on any grounds other than the grounds relied on in the statement accompanying the application for leave.

15. In Susan  Gacheri Kithinji vs OCPD Dadoab  and  another [2016] e KLR, the Honourable Dulu J on 26th April  2016  struck  out both the application  for leave  and the substantive  motion  that  were filed without  any statement  as stipulated  under Order  53 Rule 4  of the Civil Procedure  Rules.

16. Further, in John Waweru Vs District Veterinary Office Maragwa  & Another [2006] e KLR, Wendo J in  dismissing  the application for  Judicial Review  where  there  was  no statement   made it clear, inter alia, that:

“…..Neither the application for leave, nor the application filed after leave was obtained contains a statutory statement as required by law.  On that  account, even the  application which  was  filed after  leave was obtained, was fatally  defective  and  stands  no chance of salvation.”

17. In the above decisions are persuasive.  Nonetheless, they are well grounded on the law as established and there is no contrary  superior decision that overrides the said decision.  A statutory statement accompanying an application for leave to institute Judicial Review proceedings is a requirement of the law wherein the name and description of parties, the relief sought and the grounds on which the said reliefs are sought should be contained.

18. There is no requirement that an applicant can obtain leave without an accompanying statement and then seek to file the statement later, with the substantive motion.

19. Therefore, the fact that there is no statutory statement filed with the application for leave in this case, in my humble view, renders this application  for leave fatally void  ab initio since only  those   reliefs  that  are  or would  be in that  statutory  statement  and the grounds  thereof, would be  used  or relied  on  in arguing  or prosecuting  the main  motion, after leave  is granted.

20. This court  had the  opportunity  to deal  with a similar   issue  in JR  249/2015 Republic Vs Registrar  General  & 2 Others  exparte Thomas  Asogo  & 2 Others[2016] e KLR  where  I held  inter alia:

“95. I am not persuaded that in the circumstances of this case, Article 159 of the Constitution would come to the aid of the applicant.  To hold that failure to file  a statutory  statement  to accompany  application for leave  or the substantive  motion is  a procedural technicality  would be  stretching   Article  159  too  much  and  to seek to provide succor  and  cover to parties  who exhibit  scant  respect  for rules  and  matters of substance  that clothe this court  with jurisdiction  to hear  and determine  the matters before it, and which rules serve to make the process  of judicial  adjudication and administration fair, just, certain and even  handed.”

21. This court  is further  fortified  by the  Court of Appeal  decision  in Nicholas  Kiptoo  Arap  Korir  Salat Vs IEBC  & Others Civil Application Nairobi 228/2013 per Ouko Kiage and  Mohammed  JJA, that

“ Courts cannot  and in the bending of  circumventing  of rules  and shifting  of  goal posts for,  while  it may seem to  aid one side, it unfairly  harms the innocent  party who strives  to  abide  by the rules.  I apprehend that  it is the  even- handed  and dispassionate application of rules that courts give  assurance that there is clear  method   in the manner  in which things  are  done so that  outcomes  can be  anticipated  with a measure of  confidence,  certainty and  clarify  where  issues of  rules and their  application are concerned.”

22. It is for the above reasons that the application herein for leave is fatally incompetent and   I proceed to strike it out.

23. Judicial   time is  extremely  precious and having  found that there is no statutory  statement  accompanying  the application  for leave  and  therefore  that the  application for leave is  manifestly  fatally  incompetent, and   having  proceeded  to strike out  that  application for leave  dated   22nd  July  2016,  I do not  find any  value  in proceeding to determine   the merits of  the  application for leave  as   that  would  be  a waste  of precious  judicial time.

24. Furthermore, had the respondents and interested parties raised this issue, this court would have determined   the application and issue on the spot. In the end, the notice of motion dated 22nd July 2016 is hereby struck out with no orders as to costs.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 4th day of January 2017.

R. E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of

Mr Muguro for the exparte applicants

Mr A.S Masika h/b for Mr Nyakiangana for the 1-5th interested parties

CA: Lorna