Republic v Isiolo County Public Services Board & Ex-Parte Isiolo County Government [2016] KEHC 103 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  478 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 2. 10,185,194,201 AND 220 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 8 AND 9 OF THE LAW REFORM ACT, CAP 26 LAWS OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 7, 8, AND 9 OF THE FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ACT, 2015

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT ACT NO.  17 OF 2012

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC FINANCE MANAGEMENT ACT CAP 412 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER   OF ORDER 53   OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES, 2010

AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY ISIOLO COUNTY GOVERNMENT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDERS OF CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION.

BETWEEN

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

VERSUS

ISIOLO COUNTY PUBLIC SERVICES BOARD ……………RESPONDENT

EX-PARTE: ISIOLO COUNTY GOVERNMENT

RULING (2)

1. On 10th October 2016 this court considered the exparte applicant’s  chamber summons dated  7th October  2016  exparte under certificate of urgency and  granted  the exparte  applicant  who is the Isiolo County Government  leave to institute  Judicial Review  proceedings  seeking for  Judicial Review  orders of Certiorari, prohibition, and declaration  against the respondent Isiolo County  Public  Service Board  and the interested  parties herein Abdinasir Ali, Roba  Abduba  Qanchora, Halima Ibrahim, Salad  Kikuyu Sarite  and Hussein Wako  Gedo.

2. The court further granted orders that the leave granted do operate as stay of deployment of the appointed staff in terms of prayer Nos. 7 of 8 of the chamber summons.

3. The court further ordered that the substantive motion be filed and served within 21 days, with costs in the course.

4. On 27th October 2016, vide notice of motion dated 25th October 2016, the exparte applicant filed the substantive Notice of Motion pursuant to the leave granted on 10th October 2016.

5. However, on 19th October 2016, the interested parties, herein filed a notice of motion dated 18th October 2016 seeking the following orders:

a. Spent

b. That this  court do issue an order  of stay  or suspension of  its  exparte  order made  on  10th October  2016  and in particular, to suspend  or stay its order  which  provides that the leave granted  to the  exparte  applicants ( Isiolo County Government) operate as stay of the decision of the Respondent  Isiolo County Public  Service pending the hearing and determination of this application interpartes  and thereafter  as the court shall order;

c. That the court  be pleased to set aside, discharge  or vacate  its exparte  order made  on  10th October  2016  and particularly  to set  aside, discharge or vacate  the  order that  provides for leave  which was granted  to the exparte  applicant to operate as stay of the decision of the respondent  to appoint  and  deploy   the newly  recruited  officers of  the respondent.

d. That the court  be pleased  to make  an order  directing  for the transfer  of this matter to the High Court  of Kenya  at Meru  for its  hearing  and  final disposal.

e. The costs be borne by the exparte applicant   in any event.

6. The application is predicated  on the  grounds that:

a) The applicant obtained the said order fraudulently by concealment of material facts and/or information vital  to the determination of their application and the proceedings herein.

b) That the exparte applicant failed to disclose in its  application before court that the process of recruitment, appointment  and  deployment of the  newly recruited  officers  had been  completed and  the  court could not  stay an event  which had  already occurred.

c) The exparte  applicant  also concealed  and or failed  to disclose to the court that they filed two previous  proceedings  on similar   issues  being Nairobi HCC JR No. 468/2016   and  Meru HCC JR  No. 31/2016  both of which  involve the  same  parties  and a similar  cause  of action  and that in both two previous matters, the two courts considered their applications and declined to grant  the orders  exparte.

d) That the exparte  applicant  is  therefore guilty of  non disclosure of material facts  vital to the  proceedings  herein and the entire application  or proceedings  as presented before this court are irregular, unprocedural, improper  and should  have been  dismissed, and  shall also so seek  the interested  parties  herein.

e) That the  exparte applicant has approached  this court with  unpurified  hands  and  that even  though the interested  parties  may not challenge  the leave granted  to the exparte  applicant  at this stage, the same should not operate as stay of the decision  of the respondent  to appoint  and deploy  the interested parties.

f) That the  exparte  applicant is  clearly  abusing   the due process and the court by filing a multiplicity of proceedings  in various courts over the same cause of action and   involving   the same  parties.

g) That  the decision, conduct  and  actions   and  behavior   of the exparte   applicant in   this matter  has been  agitated  by the bad faith and driven by malice and or personal  vendetta  against  the respondent and  the interested  parties  who are  innocent  civil servants  who have  been caught up in the cross fire and supremacy wars between the exparte applicant and the respondent.

h) That these proceedings also offend  the provisions of Rule 22  of the High Court (Organization and Administration) Rules, 2016, Section 12(3) of the High Court Organization and  Administration) Act, 2015, as all the parties  involved herein  come from  Isiolo County and this  matter should therefore  have been filed  at the High Court of Kenya, Meru station and  Not in Nairobi  as done  by the exparte   applicant

i) That it is for proper  administration  of justice herein  and  just for this matter to be   ordered  transferred to the High Court of Kenya   at Meru station for hearing  and  final disposal

j) That this  application  is made in  utmost  good faith  and the events, facts   nature  and  circumstances  hereof, are in  favour of granting  of prayers   being  sought for herein.

7. The application is further  supported by  the affidavit   sworn  by Salad  Kikuyu  Sarite  sworn  on  18th  October, 2016 on his  own behalf and on behalf of his co interested  parties  hereto  deposing  among  others, that the  exparte  applicant herein did  through  the respondent  place a newspaper advertisement on 22nd August 2016 inviting  members of the public to make applications for various positions  that  were vacant  in the  exparte  applicant’s public  service  and that the interested  parties  herein, among  other persons, applied  for the said  various positions, were  shortlisted, interviewed  and appointed  to the  various  positions  of Chief Finance  Officer, Head of  Treasury, Head of Revenue, Head of  Supply  Chain  Management and Director of Lands and Physical Planning  respectively.

8. That the  various  appointments  were  granted  vide letters of appointment dated  30th September  2016 upon which they  were each  issued  with deployment  letters  on  3th October  2016  to  report  to work  on 10th October  2016. That thereafter, the Deputy Governor  Acting  on behalf  of the Governor wrote to the respondent  thanking it for  the successful  interviews  and  also to  the National Treasury  asking for access  to IFMIS  by the deponent .

9. In addition, that those persons who were holding acting positions filled by the interested parties herein were terminated.  That  therefore  the recruitment  process was procedurally done in compliance with the law and  appointments  took effect  on  10th October 2016  when the interested  parties reported  on duty.  That in view  of the above, the  exparte  applicant is  deceitful and  is forum  shopping  having failed to  obtain  similar  orders before  Odunga J in JR 468/2016  and Wendoh J  in JR  31/2016  in Nairobi HC  and Meru HC respectively.

10. That it is  therefore  fair and just  for the court to make  orders  suspending  or staying the  order of  10th October  2016   which stayed  the decision of the respondent  to appoint  and  deploy the  newly recruited staff who are the interested  parties  herein  since an event   that has occurred  cannot  be stayed. And  that the orders  sought if granted   will in  no way  prejudice  the exparte  applicants.

11. The application  by the interested  parties  was opposed by the exparte  applicant  who filed  a replying  affidavit   sworn by Ibrahim  Wako, on 3rd  November  2016.  The deponent  is the County  Secretary  for the exparte   applicant,  deposing, among  others that  the recruitment  process by  the respondent  was unprocedural  and  illegal since there  was  no request  from the relevant  County Chief Officers  of the departments  to which  the appointment was made; or  at the request  of the Clerk of the County Assembly; or on the County  Public  Service Board’s own  motion on account of the best  interest of the County  and   parity  of treatment  of public officers taking  into account  the circumstances  of each case, and  in accordance  with Section  59  and  63  of the County  Government  Act, 2012.

12. That at the moment, the  said  recruitment is against the interests of the County due to budgetary, fiscal and organizational issues  within the  exparte  applicant   which must  be resolved  first.

13. That the letters of the Deputy Governor were not authorized by the Governor hence they were written ultra vires and irrationally in that it has not been demonstrated that the Governor was absent   to warrant the Deputy Governor to write letters to the National Treasury.

14. That there is no  justifiable  need for the recruitment of staff in view of the lack of budgetary  allocation  for such  purpose  for the 2016/2017 budget  for  recruitment  of new  staff  in the relevant departments and that such  recruitment  would  be in violation   of the principles  of Public  Finance and Article  201 of the Constitution  and  would greatly  affect  the running  and  affairs  of the County.

15. That termination of acting appointments does not legitimatize  unlawful appointments and that the salary and the recurrent  expenditure of the respondent had  ballooned  and has  adversely  affected the  applicant’s development  expenditure  hence it   was  illogical and irrational   for the respondent to unilaterally  initiate  the  recruitment  process.

16. That the exparte  applicant  disclosed to the court  all material facts   and that although there  was  JR Nairobi 468/2016,  the same  was  ordered to be transferred  to Meru  High Court  by Honourable Odunga J and that  due to misunderstanding  of the  direction, the applicant’s Advocates Kithi  & Company  filed a fresh Meru JR 31/2016, and that  upon realization  of the mistake, the two matters were consolidated and  later withdrawn hence  there is no other matter  pending  before the same  court of competent jurisdiction.

17. That if the orders of  10th October   2016  are suspended, the exparte applicant  will suffer   untold  prejudice  as there is no  budgetary  allocation for recruitment  of new staff during the current  financial  year and  neither is  there any  requests   by the relevant  departments  as required  by Section  63 of  the  County Government  Act.

18. That the  application for suspension of stay orders  is made in bad faith, vexatious  and   meant to embarrass the court and  that it is  actuated  by malice,  ethnic  and  political  reasons.

19. That the 1st-4th interested parties never sought to be enjoined to these proceedings hence they are improperly before this court in this matter.  That the decisions  stayed   were to take   effect  on the same  date as the  date orders   were issued  on  10th October  2016 hence the  decisions  never took  effect.  That the  exparte applicant  is in the  process of carrying  out a human  resource  audit  to weed  out ghost  workers, creating  organizational structures  and organograms  for deliberation by the County Executive  Committee pursuant  to Section  46  of the County Government Act and that  there is  likelihood   of  reorganizing  some of the positions for which  the  interested  parties  have been  offered employment.

20. That  pursuant  to Article 185(3)  of the Constitution, the County Assembly of Isiolo has deliberated  in this matter  of recruitment of staff and requested  the respondent   to stop the appointments and recruitments until the organizational structure and  organograms of  the  various  affected departments  are placed  before it   for  consideration.

21. That this court should not allow  the interested  parties to benefit  from unlawful and unprocedural exercise of power by the  respondent which is in violation of Section  60(1) (g), 60(2)  of the County Government  Act.

22. That if  orders of  10th October  2016 are suspended, the  exparte  applicant will be  plunged into spiral chaos, disorganization and  disarray and that the effect of the orders sought would  negatively  affect the   residents   of  Isiolo,  thereby  defeating the  spirit of devolution  enshrined  in the Constitution  hence it is  in the interest  of  justice  and  fairness  that the application by the interested  parties  be dismissed  with costs.

23. The parties advocates  argued the application dated  18th October   2016  orally before  me on  7th November  2016  with Mr  Kobia  appearing for the interested parties and Mr Busaidy for the exparte  applicant.

24. Mr Kobia submitted that the interested parties had already  taken office  when the orders were made  on  10th October   2016  and that as a result, they  were  evicted  from their offices  on the same  day  and that  on the following  day they  were  barred  from entering  their offices. Counsel submitted  that the hiring  was done  procedurally and that  therefore  the interested  parties  should  be allowed  into office  as their  services  are essential, to the  people of  Isiolo County.

25. Further, that in view  of the various  similar matters  being filed  in other  courts and  being  rejected, the applicants  should not  be allowed to  forum shop.

26. In response, Mr Busaidy for the exparte  applicant  submitted  in detail  first, that there  was  no order to  join the interested  parties to these proceedings and that the court had not, as stipulated under Order 53  Rule 3 of the Civil  Procedure  Rules, given  any  directions  as  to service  upon any  affected  parties.  That the respondent  had not yet  entered a appearance when the interested  parties  jumped into these proceedings.

27. Mr Busaidy also submitted that leave once granted can only be set aside before the filing of the substantive motion unlike in the present proceedings where the substantive motion is already filed.  He relied on Republic V Land Disputes Tribunal Central Division & another Exparte Nzioka [2006] 1 EA 231.

28. Mr Busaidy further submitted that although this application for stay and setting aside of  orders of  10th October  2016  was  filed on  19th October  2016   before the substantive  motion  was  filed on  27th October  2016,  this  application  was only  served on 28th October  2016  hence  it is  overtaken  by  events  as the exparte  applicant  had no means of knowing that there  was an application to set aside  the leave granted.  That therefore it is in the interest of justice that the court hears the substantive notice of motion on its merits.

29. That grant of leave is not a mere formality but an exercise of judicial discretion and that in this case the court   was satisfied that the exparte applicant had met the conditions for grant of leave and stay.  That even though  leave granted  exparte can be  vacated, that  was  a limited jurisdiction  which has  to be  exercised  sparingly.  He relied  on CA  257/2003 Agha Khan Education Services (K) vs The Republic [2004] e KLR.

30. It was submitted that it had not been argued that this court in granting leave acted superficially or that the claim is hopeless, phantom or frivolous.

31. That the  JR  468/2016  was  transferred  to Meru  and due to  inadvertence, the applicant’s advocates filed a separate JR  31/2016  in  Meru  but that  upon  discovery  of the error, the two  maters  were  consolidated  and  withdrawn  although the extract  order had not yet been  signed  by the Deputy Registrar.

32. That to grant orders sought in the present motion is to shut the applicant   from a hearing which is unjust.

33. Counsel also  reiterated  what is deposed  in  the replying  affidavit  on the alleged illegality  of the recruitment  process  which   was carried out  without  the need  and or requests  for budgetary  allocation for the financial year.  That to recruit without funds will subject the County Government to several law suits and chaos.  He relied  on John Vs Rees [1970] ch D 345  at  402  where it   was held that in the exercise of discretion, the court takes  into account the exercise of good administration.

34. Mr Busaidy maintained that no prejudice will be  suffered  by the interested  parties if the orders  sought herein  as sought  herein are denied.

35. In a rejoinder, Mr Kobia submitted that the High Court  Organization and  Administration  Act  and  Rules  made  thereunder gives jurisdiction to the Meru High court to hear  and  determine  the dispute  herein.  That there is no evidence of instructions being given to 2 law firms.  He maintained  that the  services  of  the  5 officers  are  critical  to serve the   people of Isiolo  County.

36. That the respondent acted as an independent   office not out of malice or disagreement but necessity.  That the Hansard proceeding of the County Assembly is proof of the infighting between the applicants and respondent. That disagreement notwithstanding, due process had been followed prior to the recruitment of the interested parties.

37. Counsel submitted that the interested  parties have  no problem   with the leave   granted  but the stay  granted was  overtaken  by events  as the  applicants   were in office on  10th October  2016.  He urged this court to vacate its orders and order the file to be transferred to Meru High Court.

38. Mr  Kobia  also urged  the court  to invoke  Article  159 of the Constitution and find that  his clients  were not  enjoined  to these proceedings  because   they  were being  harassed  by the police.  He nevertheless urged the court to dismiss the substantive notice of motion for want of jurisdiction.

Determination

39. I have carefully considered the interested parties’ application seeking to set aside and vacate  the orders   made by this court  on 10th October   2016  which  orders  granted the exparte applicant  leave to  institute  judicial  review proceedings  against the  respondent; and  which order  also directed that the leave so granted  do operate  as stay  of enforcement   of the decision  of the respondent  to appoint and deploy the purported  newly  recruited  officers  to the respondents with effect   from 10th October   2016   and  any consequential actions thereto or in any way however engaging  in activities  attendant  thereto  pending the  hearing and  determination of the appeal filed  by the applicant  to the PSC  pursuant  to Section  77  of the County Government  Act, 2012.  The  applicants/ interested  parties  also  seek for  suspension of  the order of stay.

40. I have  also considered the  grounds  and  depositions  as  well  as the exhibits  annexed; and  the replying  affidavit, exhibits  and  both parties’ advocates  oral submissions.

41. I have equally considered the statutory and case law   relied on. In my humble view, the main issues for determination in this matter are:

1. Whether the applicant interested parties are properly  suited in this matter

2. Whether the interested parties have made out a case for setting aside of the twin orders of 10th October 2016 for   leave and stay.

3. What orders should this court make?

4. Who should bear the costs of this notice of motion?

42. On the first issue  of whether the  interested parties  are properly suited, the respondent/exparte applicant contends that the interested parties herein were not parties to the chamber summons for leave and  that although they have filed this application seeking  to vacate  the orders  of this court made on  10th October   2016, granting  leave  and  stay, they never  made any prayer  to  be enjoined to these proceedings  and that neither had  this court   given  any directions for  service upon  affected parties  as stipulated in  Order 53 Rule 53  of the Civil Procedure Rules.

43. In response to the above contention, the interested parties   counsel submitted  that this court  should invoke   the provisions  of Article 159 of the Constitution and determine  this application  on substantive  justice  and  disregard  procedural technicalities since the interested parties were not joined  to these  proceedings  because they were  being harassed  by the police.

44. What the interested parties have conceded  is that indeed, there is no application or order of this court enjoining them to these  proceedings.  Nonetheless, that they did not  have such  time to apply to be enjoined because  they were  being harassed by the police, and that  therefore this court  should  ignore  that issue of how  the interested  parties  became  parties to  these  proceedings  and focus  on substantive  justice.

45. The question to be answered by this court  is whether  in the absence of any order  sanctioning  the joinder  of the interested  parties  as parties  to this matter, the  interested  parties can legally and technically  bring the present  application  which has  no prayer  for joinder.

46. In my humble  view, a proper  party to proceedings  is one who is  impleaded  in the suit or  matter or cause and   qualifies as either the applicant, exparte  applicant, respondent or interested  party or third  party as  the case  may be; or   whose  presence  before  the court is necessary  or relevant   for  the effective  and  effectual determination of the real matters in dispute.  The court on the other hand has the discretion  whether on its own motion  or  on application of either party to the proceeding or by the person so interested in the proceedings or who has a legitimate interest in the matter, to order that such  party   whose presence  before the court  is  necessary, to be  enjoined  to the pleadings.  It therefore follows that no suit or  cause  can be defeated  for non–joinder  or misjoinder  of parties.

47. However, this  court is  confronted  with an objection where no leave of court  was sought  or obtained  for  joinder of the interested  parties  who are  seeking  to upset  the proceedings of this court held on  10th October  2016. neither did the court on its own motion order that the interested parties herein be served with the substantive motion.

48. In my humble view, unless  the court  makes  a joinder of parties  to proceedings  suo motu, a party  wishing  to participate  in the proceedings  before the court must  apply to be enjoined.  In other words, there must be authority or order of the court enjoining  such a party   to the proceedings. One cannot jump into the proceedings in an  arbitrary manner.

49. Even amicus  curie   will only join court  proceedings  on the order  of the court.  Admission into the  judicial proceeding especially where   one  is not the  primary  party is an essential  aspect  in adjudication of cases  which follow the  principle  that presence  of proper  parties  before the court  is sine qua  non exercise  of jurisdiction by  the court.  That   principle  will be  defeated  if parties  were to enter  into the  existing  proceedings  as they  wish without permission of the court.

50. In Apex  International Ltd  & Anglo leasing  and Finance   International  Ltd  vs KACC[2012] e KLR citing the Nigeria Supreme  Court  in Goodwill  and  Trust  Investment  Ltd & Another  V Will and  Bush Ltd, the court held that:

“  It is trite  law that to be  competent  and  have jurisdiction over a matter, proper  parties  must be  identified  before the action  can succeed; the  parties to  it must be  shown  to be  proper  parties whom rights  and  obligation arising  from the cause of  action  attach.  The question of proper parties is a very important issue which would affect the jurisdiction of the suit in limine.  Where proper  parties  are not  before the court  the court lacks  jurisdiction  to heart the suit, and, where the  court purports  to exercise  jurisdiction  which it does  not have, the proceedings  before it, and its judgment  will amount to a nullity no matter how  well reasoned.”

51. It is not  denied  in this matter  that the interested  parties  herein  never  sought leave of court to be enjoined  to these  proceedings  as such  interested  parties.  This is not to say  that they  have  no identifiable  interest  in this  matter;  but that  they have  not even sought  the  authority  of the court   to participate  in these  proceedings  before  or on  filing of  their  application herein which  seeks very  substantive  order of  setting  aside the orders  of this court  made on  10th October  2016.

52. In addition , this court did not at the time  of making  the orders  of 10th October 2010  order on its own motion, for the joinder of the  interested parties  herein to these  proceedings.

53. Neither did the interested parties make any oral application to be enjoined to these proceedings before or during the hearing of this application subject of this ruling.

54. Their counsel only  reacted to the serious  objection  as to their standing in this matter during rejoinder submission by submitting that the interested parties were not  enjoined  because   they were  being   harassed  by the police  and that this  court  should invoke  Article   159  of  the Constitution.

55. In my humble view, the interested parties herein  are not properly  before  this court  and are without the authority  of the court enjoining  them to  the proceedings  since they  were not  primary parties hence they cannot invoke  the jurisdiction of this court to determine their application to vacate orders of this  court made  on  10th October  2016.

56. The simplest  thing for the interested  parties  would have been to seek leave  of court  to be enjoined to  these proceedings, first, before  moving on a spree  for other  far reaching  orders.  The  5 interested parties  herein,  I find, are  total strangers to these proceedings and  I would  proceed   without  hesitation to strike  them from the record  which in effect  renders  their application seeking to vacate   the orders  of this court  made on  10th October   2016   incompetent.  The same  is equally  struck  out of these  proceedings  as the application cannot  stand  on its own  without a party(s)  who brought  the application.

57. I hasten to add that  Article  159 of the Constitution  was not  intended to upset   all other  established  principles  of the law  that  a party  who is  not a  primary  party to the proceedings can only  participate   in the proceedings   with leave  of court or  with authority  of the court  where  the court  on its own motion  orders for such  joinder.

58. In other words, a party  cannot just  jump into the arena  of a  dispute  and seek for such substantive  and far  reaching  orders without  being enjoined to the proceedings and  after it is  caught up with an objection, it flags Article 159 of the Constitution  saying  “I  was in a hurry being  chased so I just  landed  here please  in the interest  of justice, vacate all orders that you made in this matter because  they  adversely  affect my interests.”

59. Courts have  in applying  Article  159  of the Constitution not hesitated  to hold that Article  159 of the Constitution which obliges  the courts  in their  exercise  of judicial  authority  be guided by the principles, inter  alia, that justice shall be  administered without undue regard to  procedural  technicalities, and   therefore   render substantive  justice, is not a panacea  for all  ills  and  procedural pitfalls.

60. Assuming that  I was  to be found  to have  erred in my above holding, the  next question  would be whether  the interested parties  whom I have  found are  strangers to these proceedings  would be entitled  to the orders sought  to vacate  the orders  of this court made on 10th October  2016 granting  leave to apply  for Judicial Review  proceedings  against the  respondent  and that  leave granted do operate  as stay  of the decision  of the respondent  until the substantive  motion is filed,  heard and determined.

61. According to the interested  parties’  pleadings, the leave  granted   was not deserved  because the exparte  applicant withheld  very material facts  to this court  which material   facts are  that it had been  denied  similar  orders twice before  Honourable Odunga  J and  by R.Wendo  J in Meru High Court.

62. Secondly, that the respondent has already recruited and appointed  the interested  parties herein  and that it has  gone further  and  deployed  them to their various  offices  for which they  were recruited  to render  very  essential  services   hence there is  nothing  to be  stayed.

63. In the submissions, however, counsel for the interested  party, submitted that his clients had no problem with the leave  granted to remain  but  that they  only  have a serious problem  with the stay  which  was granted on the day  that they  reported  into offices on  deployment  and  were chased  away and  barred from accessing their offices yet they were procedurally and  legally  recruited  into office  by the respondent;  and that the  residents  of Isiolo who  so desire the essential services  of the  interested parties  will suffer  irreparably  as the  operations  of the  County Government  will be  grounded since  the persons  who were appointed in those respective positions in acting capacities, their  letters of  appointment  had been revoked.

64. With the  interested  parties  counsel  submitting  that his clients  had no issue  with the leave  granted, I need not  delve  into the  issue  of whether  or not  the leave  granted  was  deserved.  In other words, I will not  disturb  the order  for leave  since it is  not denied that no substantive orders were made  by Honourable Odunga J and Wendo J with the two files in Meru High Court having been  consolidated and the applicant having  withdrawn  the matters  as consolidated, there  remained  nothing to be  heard  except  this matter  which, it has  not been  demonstrated, was  intended to  abuse the court  process or to vex  the respondent  and  or any  other interested  parties.

65. What  this court  gathers  from the  interested  parties  pleadings and  submissions, however, is a challenge  to Judicial  Review proceedings which   this court is  not seized   of at this  point in time  to determine.  On an exparte   application, leave to apply for Judicial Review can be refused, deferred to a substantive hearing or given.  What a judge   on an  exparte  application  is expected  to do is no more than decide   that there is an arguable  case for  judicial Review  and not to  determine  any  issues   finally in favour of the  applicant, unless it is  shown that the leave was sought  and  granted outside   the statutory  period, or that leave was not deserved or at all.

66. Nonetheless, as the interested parties have relaxed their objection to the leave granted, that prayer for setting aside leave is hereby marked as withdrawn.

67. On whether   the stay granted  should be  vacated  to allow  the interested  parties  occupy  their various  offices  that they had been employed to occupy and allegedly deployed, both parties’  advocates  have submitted at length on the issue as to whether or not the respondent’s  recruitment  of the interested parties was procedural, or legal.  In my humble view, this court  cannot delve  into the depths  of the legality or procedural propriety of the hiring of the interested  parties by the respondent  at this stage  as that is the  substantive  issue that  this court shall be  called upon to determine in the substantive  motion which is  already  filed.  To determine that issue at this stage is to preempt the decision in the substantive motion which will be prejudicial to the parties.

68. However, at the time of making the order for stay, this court   was satisfied on the material before it that there was a prima face arguable case and that if the stay sought was not granted, then the motion if successful, would be rendered nugatory.

69. Although the interested parties  claim  that they  were  already  in office  when the order  for stay  was made it was  conceded by Mr Kobia that the order was served on the respondents  the same day  that the  interested  parties  were to occupy  their offices  as  deployed  but that the interested parties were chased by the police and on the following day they were barred from accessing  their offices.

70. In the  exparte  applicant’s prayers  for  leave, and  substantive  motion, prayer  No. 6  is clear  that it seeks  for prohibition  directed at the respondent, prohibiting it from among  others….and  or deploying  any new employees  until  budgetary  allocations  and  requisitions  by relevant  departments  due to  vacancies  are made,  and the  organizational  structures  of the departments  of the applicant is  approved by  the  applicant’s  County Assembly.”

71. The applicant’s  prayers  Nos 2,3, and  4 also seeks for Judicial Review  orders  of certiorari  to quash   the decisions  of the respondent to recruit, and  employ  the interested  parties   herein  on account of illegality and procedural impropriety; and  further, that an appeal had been filed with the Public Service  Commission pursuant  to Section  77 of the  County Government Act.

72. That being   the case, in my humble   view, to vacate the  orders   of stay when it is clear  that the  interested  parties  are not  in office and when their recruitment, employment and  deployment   is being  questioned  on account   of illegality is to  prejudice  the Judicial Review proceedings  and the appeal  pending before  the Public Service Commission which,  if successful would be  rendered  nugatory and the applicant  will be a mere pious  explorer  in the  judicial  process.  Court orders  are  never made in vain and  as the matter  herein  can be  fast tracked  into an   expeditious  hearing, it is better  be left  to remain  as it is  and not to disturb the status  quo so as  to accord  all the affected   parties   a hearing  and not   oust  them from the seat   of justice.

73. Accordingly, I find that it is not in the interest of justice to set aside the orders of stay issued on 10th October 2016.  I dismiss the application for setting aside of the orders of 10th October, 2016 by the interested parties who are nonetheless   non suited for they were never enjoined to these proceedings.

74. I order that each party shall bear their own costs of this application.

Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 5th day of December, 2016.

R. E. ABURILI

JUDGE