Republic v Chief Magistrates Commercial Courts, New Dawn Self Help Group & Attorney General [2017] KEHC 4398 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  33 OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDERS OF CERTIORARI

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA ARTICLES 47, 49 AND 50

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 8 AND 9 OF THE LAW REFORM ACT, LAWS OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF ORDER 53 RULES 1 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

REPUBLIC ………………………………………………………....APPLICANT

VERSUS

CHIEF MAGISTRATES COMMERCIAL COURTS……...1ST RESPONDENT

NEW DAWN SELF HELP GROUP ………………............2ND RESPONDENT

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL………………………...........3RD RESPONDENT

NAIROBI CITY COUNTY……………………….....….EX PARTE APPLICANT

JUDGMENT

1. Before this court for determination are two notices of motion by the exparte applicant.  There is  the substantive notice  of motion dated 10th February 2017 brought under the provisions of  Articles  47,49 and  50  of the Constitution, Order 53  Rule  1  of the Civil  Procedure Rules, and Sections 8 and 9 of the Law  Reform Act  Cap  26  Laws  of Kenya.

2. The notice of motion  is brought  pursuant  to the  leave of court granted  on 1st February  2017  seeking Judicial Review  order of  Certiorari to  remove  to the High  Court and  quash  the  warrants of  arrest  issued on  30th January  2017 by  the  1st  respondent  Chief Magistrate  Commercial Courts, against the  applicant’s   chief officers namely Chrispine O. Calep, Albert Koech, Stephen  Njuguna  Waweru, Harry Mwahari and Judah  Abekah.  It also prays for costs and any other relief that the court may deem just and expedient to grant.

3. The grounds  upon which  the motion is predicated  are on the  face of the motion, the statutory  statement  and the  verifying   affidavit of Dr Robert Ayisi Acting County Secretary.

4. Principally, the exparte  applicant  claims that  on 30th January  2017  the Chief Magistrate’s  Court at Nairobi  issued  a  warrant  of arrest against  the applicant’s Chief  Officers for  alleged   contempt of court yet they had not been served with the  application  for contempt  of court  hence the  decision  to issue a  warrant  of arrest  against   them  was  irrational.  That  when the advocate  for the  applicant   applied  on  30th January  2017  for suspension of the  warrants  of arrest,  the court  declined  to grant the orders  hence  the applicants had to  seek refuge  before this Honourable court.

5. The  advocate  for the applicant,  Miss Otieno  did submit  to that effect  while urging the court  to grant  the  orders sought, of quashing  the warrants  of arrest issued  on 30th January 2012.

6. In the motion  dated  20th February  2012,  the applicant seeks  leave  of court to amend the  substantive  motion  to enjoin  the Honourable  Attorney General  as a party to these  proceedings  because he  is a necessary  party and that  they inadvertently  omitted  him hence it is in the  interest of  justice  that he  be enjoined  to represent  the  Chief Magistrates Court.

7. The 1st respondent   did not file any response to the substantive motion nor the one dated 20th February 2017 but argued orally on points of law.

8. The 2nd respondent filed a replying  affidavit  sworn by Perpetua  Ponjiwa   a member of   New Dawn  Self  Help Group, the  2nd  respondent  contending principally, that it is misjoined   to the proceedings as no remedy is sought  against  the  2nd  respondent  and asserting that the applicants were served with the  application for contempt  of court prior to  the application being  canvassed  as shown  by the order of 8th August  2016  wherein the applicants  received  the  order on  9th August  2016  which order restrained them from interfering  with the  2nd  respondent’s  peaceful possession and  occupation  of Tumaini  Parking  along  Moi Avenue  for purposes of a trade fair pending  the  hearing  and  determination  of the  application, which application  was set  for  inter parties  hearing   on 21st  September  2016.

9. The  2nd respondent  also annexed  the notice of motion dated  13th January  2012 which sought  for committal  to  jail  of the exparte  applicant’s  named chief officers  for contempt  of court order  dated 8th  August  2016  referred to above.  It  was  argued  by Mr Kinyanjui advocate that the  orders sought  in the  two motions  are not  available because the court below  exercised  its jurisdiction   and  discretion  properly.  Moreso, that  the  warrants of arrest  were not before  the court  for  quashing   and  that the omission  to enjoin the Honourable Attorney General to these  proceedings  was  fatal abinitio to the substantive motion.

10. The 1st respondent  through Miss Ngelechei  counsel opposed both motions  while maintaining  that the Attorney General  cannot be  a primary  party  but  a legal representative as  duty calls him to do so  for the Chief  Magistrate’s Court hence  he should  have been  simply  served with pleadings  on the substantive  motion.  Miss Ngelechei  argued  that there  was nothing  to show that   the Chief Magistrate  overreached  in his  decision  or acted  without jurisdiction or illegally  hence the  motion  for certiorari  should be  dismissed.

DETERMINATION.

11. I have carefully considered the foregoing and the issues for determination are whether the motion for amendment is merited; whether the substantive motion is merited; whether the Attorney General ought to have been enjoined to these proceedings; and whether the 2nd respondent is improperly enjoined to these proceeding.

12. On the motion for  amendment,  I am in agreement  with Miss  Ngelechei for the 1st respondent and add that the Attorney General   has a constitutional and statutory duty to represent  the National Government in all civil proceedings  and  any other  proceedings except in criminal proceedings.  It follows therefore  that the idea of joinder  or non  joinder of the Attorney General to these  proceedings  is immaterial  as his non joinder is not  fatal  or at all.  (See Article 156 of the Constitution and the provisions of Section 5 of the Office of Attorney General Act.  Parties may  opt to enjoin  the  Honourable  Attorney General  to proceedings  as the  Principal Legal Advisor  to the Government  where the  National  Government entity or organ  is a primary  party to proceedings  or they may  simply  serve  the entity which will  then  seek legal advice and representation from the Honourable   Attorney General.

13. Accordingly, I overrule the objection that the Attorney General ought to have been enjoined to these proceedings from the onset. I also decline to grant the application for amendment of the motion to enjoin the Attorney General as a necessary party to these judicial review proceedings and dismiss it.

14. On the question of the merits  of the substantive   notice of  motion, it is clear that the motion seeks  to bring into this court for purposes  of quashing  and  to quash   the  warrants  of arrest issued on 30th January 2017 against the applicant’s named Chief  Officers by the Chief Magistrate.  The supporting ‘affidavit’ to the motion which is dated 10th February 2017 is not even signed by the deponent Dr Robert Ayisi.  That notwithstanding, the  provisions  of  Order  53   of the Civil  Procedure  Rules  are clear  that in the substantive  motion, the applicant  only  needs to rely on the statutory  statement and  verifying  affidavit  of the applicant  accompanying  the chamber  summons  for leave. As the verifying affidavit of the same deponent Dr Robert Ayisi is duly signed and commissioned by a Commissioner of Oaths, I see no material defect save that the supporting affidavit is no affidavit at all since it is unsigned and the same is hereby struck out with no consequences or effect to the substance of the substantive motion.

15. However, Order 53 Rule 7(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, it is clear that:

(1) In case  of an application for an order of  certiorari to remove any proceedings for the purpose of  their being  quashed, the applicant  shall  not question the validity  of any order,  warrant, commitment, conviction, inquisition or record unless, before  the hearing  of the motion, he  has  lodged  a copy thereof  verified  by an affidavit  with the Registrar  or  accounts for  his failure  to do  so to the  satisfaction of the High Court”

16. In the instant case, what is apparent is that  neither  the  warrants  of arrest which are  sought  to be quashed  nor the  proceedings for 30th January 2017 wherein the said  warrants  of arrest   were allegedly  issued  against the Chief Officers of the applicant City County Government are attached  to the  verifying  affidavit  for purposes of Order 53  Rule 7(1) of the Civil Procedure  Rule and  for purposes of being  quashed  by this court.

17. In other words, there is nothing in the form of an order or warrant of arrest which is impugned.  This court in the exercise of Judicial Review jurisdiction cannot act out of nothing. That which is being quashed to be brought or removed into this court for quashing must be available to the court to be considered for quashing.

18. As  there is nothing before me to be quashed, I would  bring nothing  for purposes  of  quashing  and  therefore  I quash nothing.

19. For the above reasons, I have no hesitation in finding that these proceedings were hastily filed without giving serious thought into their competency. I proceed to dismiss the motion dated 10th February 2017 for want of merit and for being incompetent.

20.  On the question raised by the 2nd respondent that it is not a necessary party to these proceedings as no orders are sought against it,  and therefore whether it was properly  joined to these proceedings, I find  and  hold that  the  2nd respondent, from the  annexures  on record  is an interested  party to these  proceedings  because it  was  the complainant /plaintiff in the Chief Magistrate’s Court  wherein the  contempt  proceedings   were commenced  against the exparte  applicant’s named Chief  Officers.

21. Whether  the 2nd respondents were named as  respondents without  any reliefs  being sought  against them  is a mere  technicality  which can be  cured under  Article  159(2) (d)  of the Constitution.  This  is so because  Order  53  Rule  3  of the Civil  Procedure Rules  is clear  that  the notice  of motion for the substantive  orders shall be served  on all  persons  directly affected  and where  they concern  proceedings   before a court  then they shall be served on the presiding  officer  of the court and  all  the parties  to the proceedings.

22. In this  case, the proceedings wherein the warrant of arrest  were allegedly  issued  were before  the Chief  Magistrates court at  Milimani Commercial  court in CMCC 4833/2016  between   the 2nd  respondent  herein and the exparte applicant  herein hence the 2nd respondent is directly affected by any order that may be issued by this court and therefore there is  no misjoinder  and the  fact  that the 2nd  respondent  was  named  as  respondent  and  not interested party  is  not fatal  to these  proceedings.  The objection by the 2nd respondent is accordingly dismissed.

23. In the  end,  I find that  the two motions  dated  10th February 2017  and  20th February  2017  are without  any merit.  They are dismissed.  Costs are in the discretion of the court.  I note that it is the incompetence of the    two applications as well as the weak objections by the 2nd respondent and the lack of vigilance on the part of the exparte  applicant’s  counsel  that has given   rise to the  incompetent  proceedings in that they failed to annex the warrants of arrest and or proceedings which their clients sought to quash.  Counsel  ought to  have  advised  their clients  on what is  appropriate  especially  where  there is no claim of want  of  jurisdiction  on the part  of the trial court.

24.  In the premises, I order that there shall be no orders as to costs.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 11th day of May, 2017.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Miss Otieno for the exparte applicants

Miss Ngelechei for 1st and 3rd respondents

Mr Kinyanjui for the 2nd respondent