Republic v Kenya Urban Road Authority & China Roads and Bridge Corporation Ex-parte Atlas Copco Eastern Africa Limited [2017] KEHC 2778 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. 121 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF: ORDER 53 RULE 3 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURES RULES

AND

IN THE MATTER OF: AN APPLICATION BY ATLAS COPCO EASTERN AFRICA LIMITED FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS FOR ORDERS OF CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS

AND

IN THE MATTER OF: CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 AND THE KENYA ROADS ACT 2007

IN THE MATTER OF : AN APPLICATION  BY ATLAS  COPCO EASTERN AFRICA  LIMITED  FOR JUDICIAL  REVIEW  PROCEEDINGS FOR ORDERS  OF CERTIORARI  TO QUASH THE DECISION DATE 15TH SEPTEMBER  2015  BY KENYA URBAN ROADS AUTHORITY REFUSING GRANT OF AUTHORITY TO ATLAS COPCO EASTERN AFRICA TO CONSTRUCT A STANDARD EXIT TO LINK ITS PREMISES TO THE SERVICE ROAD FOR ACCESS TO AIRPORT  NORTH ROAD.

IN THE MATTER  OF : AN  APPLICATION  BY ATLAS  COPCO EASTERN AFRICA LIMITED  FOR JUDICIAL  REVIEW  TO APPLY  FOR ORDERS  OF MANDAMUS  TO COMPEL  KENYA URBAN ROADS AUTHORITY(KURA) TO GRANT THE APPLICANT AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT  A STANDARD  EXIT  TO THE SERVICE  ROAD TO LINK TO AIRPORT NORTH ROAD FOR ACCESS SAFETY AND REMOVE  TEMPORARY  RAMP PLACED  AT THE EXIT.

IN THE MATTER  OF: AN APPLICATION BY ATLAS  COPCO EASTERN  AFRICA  LIMITED  FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW  TO APPLY FOR ORDERS  OF PROHIBITION  AGAINST  KENYA  URBAN ROADS  AUTHORITY (KURA) FROM  ERECTING  RAMPS  ON ITS  EXIT  GATE.

BETWEEN

REPUBLIC.............................................................................................APPLICANT

-VERSUS-

KENYA URBAN ROAD AUTHORITY.......................................1ST RESPONDENT

CHINA ROADS AND BRIDGE CORPORATION…………....2ND RESPONDENT

KENYA POWER & LIGHTINGCOMPANY LIMITED...........INTERESTED PARTY

Exparte

ATLAS COPCO EASTERN AFRICA LIMITED

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Issue for determination:

Whether “ the court  shall strike  out pleadings  which are not paid for  by a party  who is not legally  exempted  from payment  of  court fees.

1. On  16th March  2016  Honourable  Odunga  J granted  to the exparte applicant  herein Atlas Copco Eastern Africa  Limited, leave of court to commence Judicial Review proceedings  against the respondents Kenya Urban Roads  Authority (KURA)  and  China  Roads and  Bridges Corporation (CRBC).

2. The interested party is Kenya Power and Lighting  Company Ltd  (KPLC).

3. The substantive  notice of motion  was to  be filed  and  served within 21 days of the date when  leave  was granted  on 5th April  2016 the exparte applicant  Atlas Copco Eastern  Africa Limited  did ‘file’ a notice of motion  dated the same day.

4. Initially the  1st  respondent raised  a preliminary  objection to the effect that the  chamber summons  for leave  was  filed in court  after  6  months  of the date of  the  impugned  decision  but this court  declined  to uphold the preliminary objection after establishing  that the application  for leave  was filed  within  6 months  of the date  of the impugned  decision.  The ruling  of the court is  dated  19th July  2016.

5. In the instant case, the exparte  applicant seeks  for the following  three Judicial  Review Orders:

1) Certiorari to remove  into the  Honourable court  and  quash  the  decision of Kenya Urban Roads Authority (KURA) the 1st respondent made on 15th September 2015  refusing/declining   the  application by the  applicant to  construct  a standard  exist from its premises on LR No. 24808 for access to Airport  North Road  for the applicant’s  heavy vehicles and equipments  in safety and conveniences;

2) Mandamus to  compel  the  1st respondent to  authorize  and  approve the construction of a standard exit as objectively  proposed  by the applicant  for exit as objectively proposed  by the applicant  for exit  and  access to the service road  leading to Airport  North Road  from its  premises  on LR No. 24809.

3) Prohibition  against the  1st respondent prohibiting  from erecting or placing blockage ramps on the existing  temporary  exit  of the applicant.

4) Costs of the application be  provided for.

6. The notice of motion  is predicated  on the statutory  statement, and verifying affidavit  sworn by Joseph  Muchina  and  exhibits  accompanying  the chamber summons  for leave.

7. The motion is  opposed by  the respondents  while the  interested  party Kenya Power and  Lighting Company  filed an  affidavit  in reply  contending  that the  application is incompetent, and  does not  disclose  any actionable  cause of action against  the  interested  party.

8. But  before I  delve  into the merits  of the motion, my attention in the course  of perusal  of the court file  was drawn  to the fact that  there is no court receipt  showing  the  court fees  paid  for the notice e of motion dated  5th April  2017.

9. I therefore  embarked  on the scrutiny of the entire  court record  just  in case the court receipt could have been  mislaid but  found none.

10. For that  reason alone, I  could not  delve into the merits  of the notice  of motion.   I have  to decide on the  single issue  of whether the notice of motion dated 5th April  2017  is filed  and  or whether  it is  competently  on record.  If the answer  to the  question of competence of the notice of motion is in the negative, the question  is whether  the  notice of motion  should be struck out  notwithstanding  the  merits  thereof.

Striking  out of pleadings

11. This court  is very much  alive to  the overriding  principle  of law that  deviations  from and  lapses  in form  and  procedures  which do  not go to  the jurisdiction   of the court,  or to  the  root of  the  dispute  or which do not  at all occasion  prejudice or miscarriage  of justice  to the opposite  party  ought not to be  elevated to the level  of a criminal  offence  attracting  such heavy  punishment  of the offending party, who  may in  many cases  be innocent  since the rules of  procedure  are complex  and  technical.

12. In such  cases, courts are  usually called upon to spare the parties the  draconian  approach  of striking  out  pleadings.  Thus, where a procedural  infraction causes  no injustice  by way  of injurious  prejudice to a person, such infraction should not have an invalidating effect. Further, justice must not be  sacrificed  on the altar  of strict  adherence  to provisions  of procedural  law which at times create  hardship and unfairness.

13. The above is the spirit  and  letter of  Section 1A, 1B of the  Civil Procedure Act and Article 159  of the Constitution  of Kenya  2010.   However, where a party  or his advocates  is well aware of the  legal process  and  what is required of him  in terms of  court filing  fees, but proceeds to evade  payment of  such court fees which in turn denies the people of  Kenya essential  revenue  for service  delivery, such  person does not  deserve  the  exercise of discretion of the courts  and  therefore the provisions  of Section 96  of the Civil Procedure  Act Cap 21  Laws of Kenya would not  come to his  aid.

14. In this  case, the  exparte  applicant  filed chamber  summons  on 15th March 2016  seeking for leave  of court  to institute  Judicial Review  proceedings  which leave  was granted  by the court.  The applicant in seeking audience before the court did pay kshs 2,255 as assessed court fees.

15. However, after  obtaining leave of  court to institute  substantive  proceedings  as  required  by law, the applicant  did not  pay any  court fees  on  5th April  2016  when it  filed the  notice of motion dated  the same day.  Neither is there any evidence that court fees was  assessed for the filing of the said notice of motion.

16. This court is aware that each of the prayers for the Judicial Review remedies attract a fee of kshs 6,000/-.  It follows that for the three Judicial Review prayers of  certiorari, mandamus  and  prohibition, the court and therefore  the  public  lost over kshs  18,000/- in unpaid revenue.

17. I have  perused  the court file  page  by page  and  I am unable  to trace  any court receipt for the filing  of notice of motion.

18. Pleadings are only  deemed to  be filed  in court upon payment  of court fees  for the filing  thereof, unless  the party  filing is  exempted from paying court fees such as the National  Government Ministries or County Governments.  There are also certain categories of persons who may be exempted from paying court fees and these are paupers, on application.

19. In this  case, the exparte  applicant  does not  fall in  any of the  categories of  persons  who may be exempted from paying  court fees, as it  is not  a government  entity  and neither  did it apply  to be exempted  from paying  court  fees as a pauper  in which case, Article 48  of the Constitution  on access  to justice  would be  applicable.

20. In addition, there  is no application  for waiver  of payment  of part  of court fees required  for  instituting  substantive  Judicial Review  proceedings.

21. A party who is capable of paying court fees and who unilaterally  fails to  pay such  court fees  thereby  denying  the public  that much needed revenue must not  be allowed  to benefit  from judicial services.

22. I do not  find such  omission to be a procedural technicality  curable  by Section 1A,1B of the Civil  Procedure Act  or Article  159(2)  of the Constitution.

23. The failure to pay court  fees at  the  inception  of proceedings and or  subsequently  is a serious  omission which goes to the root or  jurisdiction of the court to  entertain  the motion.  Filing of pleadings is not merely receiving a received   date stamp from the court registry. It is paying for the services as   stipulated in the rules and any party who evades paying   court fees whether on its own accord or in collusion with the registry staff pays the ultimate price of having their pleadings struck out.

24. Parties and their advocates  must assist  the court to  administer  justice equally. It cannot be that some parties pay for the services while others evade payment  by colluding  with some  unscrupulous  court  staff.

25. It is the duty of every party who wishes to be heard by the court to ensure   that the documents they wish to rely on in  pursuing their claim are paid for.

26. In this case, and many other cases that this court has encountered  in this Jurisdiction of the High Court, I observe  that there is  a  deliberate  attempt by some parties  to evade  paying court fees and in some cases the court receipts are  swapped for  different documents  to make it appear  as if the  receipts are genuine but on serious scrutiny, the court has established  in some instances, that the court fees and  date  for the attached  receipts  do not  match the  documents  filed  and the date  of filing.  Such practices  must be  discouraged  as  they touch on the integrity  and  ethical  behavior  of the parties  and  court officials.

27. In South Nyanza Sugar Company Limited v Samwel Osewe Ochillo P/A Ochillo & Company Advocates [2007] eKLRthe Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court decision which struck out a suit for non-payment of court filing fees required to file the plaint and held that there was no valid plaint upon which the court could proceed to deliver a judgment.

28. The Court of Appeal in the above case agreed with a Ugandan case and stated:

“Dealing with a similar situation in the Ugandan case of UNTA EXPORTS LTD VS CUSTOMS [1971] EA 648, Gouldie, J. stated as follows at page 649 letters E to F:-

“I have no doubt whatsoever that both as a matter of practice and also as a matter of law documents cannot validly be filed in the civil registry until fees have either been paid or provided for by a general deposit from the filing advocate from which authority has been given to deduct court fees ………..”

“With respect, we agree and would adopt that principle as being aptly applicable to the issue we are dealing with.”

29. This not being public interest litigation or litigation to advance legitimate public interest  or meant to contribute to a[proper understanding of law  but aimed at giving the applicant a private gain, there is no justification for non-payment of court fees.

30. It is for the above reasons that having found that there is no evidence  that  the notice of  motion dated  5th April  2017  was paid  for, I proceed  to strike  out the  same  as  being fatally incompetent.  I order each party to pay their own costs of the incompetent application.

Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 10th day of October, 2017.

R. E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Mr Njagi for the exparte applicant

Miss Daido h/b for Mr Munene for Respondent

Mr Sigei for Interested Party

CA: George