Republic v Linda Wanjiku,G.M. Gitonga (Mr) RM & Attorney General Ex-Parte E N (Applying as father and next friend of S K (Minor) [2017] KEHC 6057 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  412 OF 2016

IN THE MATER OF AN APPLICATION BY E N FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR ORDERS OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION AND CERTIORARI

AND

IN THE MATTER OF CHILDREN’S CASE NO.  249 OF 2013   AT THE CHILDREN’S COURT IN MILIMANI

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 84    OF THE CHILDREN’S ACT

AND

IN THE MATTER OF RULE 4 OF THE CIVIL CHILDREN’S (PRACTICE & PROCEDURE   PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY) REGULATIONS, 2002

IN THE MATTER OF ABUSE OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

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

AND

E N

(Applying as father and next friend of

S K (MINOR)……..…………...................EX-PARTE APPLICANT

VERSUS

LINDA WANJIKU ………………………...….1ST RESPONDENT

HON. G.M. GITONGA (MR) RM………….....2ND RESPONDENT

THE HON. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL……3RD RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

1. On 7th September 2016, Honourable Odunga J granted the applicant herein E N (applying as father and next friend of S K (minor) leave to file Judicial Review proceedings pursuant to the chamber summons date 6th September 2016.

2. The learned judge further directed that the matter comes up for directions on 27th September   2016; with costs in the cause.

3. The record shows that the applicant filed the substantive motion on 19th September 2016.  The official court   stamp and  receipt for fees  received  being  18,835 vide receipt  No. [particulars withheld]  is clear  on the date  that the substantive  motion  was filed.

4. The order granting  leave to apply  for Judicial Review  proceedings  as per the chamber summons  dated  6th September  2016  is clear that the applicant  was to  commence  Judicial Review  proceedings  within  7 days  from the date  of leave  which  was  7th September, 2016.

5. However, the application was filed on 19th September 2016   which was the twelfth day of the date   when leave was granted.  The seventh   day fell on 14th September 2016.

6. There was no application for enlargement of the period of 7 days originally granted.  That being the case, the only question for determination in the substantive  notice of motion dated 19th  September  2016  and filed on the  same day is whether  the said motion  is competent  before this court, to  warrant  an indepth  consideration  of the merits   thereof.

7. Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules is clear  that once leave  is granted to  apply for Judicial  Review  orders of  mandamus, certiorari  and  prohibition, the  substantive  motion shall be  filed within  21 days  of the date   of such  order for leave.

8. However, the court  having  granted  a  shorter  period  than the  21  days  stipulated in the Rules, it  was upon the applicant  to file  the  substantive  notice of motion  within  the time  frame  stipulated  in the order for  leave  and  failure   to comply  with  the order for   leave  on the time  lines  renders  the substantive  motion as filed   incompetent.

9. I am fortified by the Court of Appeal decision rendered in United Housing Estate Limited v Nyals (Kenya) Ltd Civil Application No.  Nairobi 84 of 1996 where the Court of Appeal pronounced itself as follows:

“ A party who obtained an order of a court on certain specified  conditions  can only  continue  enjoying  the benefits  of that order if the conditions attaching to it are scrupulously  honoured  and in  the event  of a  proved  failure  to comply with the attached  conditions, the court  has inherent  power to recall  or vacate  such an order.”

10. What emerges from the above decision of the Court of Appeal is that a party cannot unilaterally  decide  not to  comply  with the  conditions attached  to the exercise  of the  discretion of the court  in his  or her  favour  on the ground  that he or  she  ought  to have access to  justice.

11. In the instant  case,  the  applicant had  the option  of moving  the court to enlarge  the time  or to seek to regularize   the record  where  the motion  has already been lodged  out of the stipulated  time frame.

12. Failure to apply for enlargement of time for filing of the substantive notice of motion automatically disentitled  the exparte applicant the favourable exercise of this court’s discretion.

13. To enjoy the discretion of the court, the applicant must approach the court with an application for enlargement of time.  In Wilson  Osolo  Vs John  Ojiambo  Ochola  & Another  CA  6 of  1995  where  the Court of Appeal  while  appreciating  that Section  9(3)  of the Law Reform Act Cap 26 Laws  of Kenya quite  clearly  shows  that an application for leave to  apply  for an order  of leave to  apply  for an  order of  certiorari  cannot be  made six  months  after the date  of the order  sought to  be  quashed,  and that there is no  provision for  extending   the  time period  prescribed  there under  was  nevertheless  of the view  that:

“ It  was  a mandatory  requirement  under  Order  53  Rule  3(1)  of the Civil  Procedure  Rules  then  and it is  now  again so)  that the notice  of motion must be  filed within  21 days  of grant  of such leave.  No such notice of motion having been  apparently filed  within 21  days  of 15th February  1982, there   was  no proper  application  before the superior  court.  This period  of  21  days  could  have been  extended  by a  reasonable   period  had there been an  application  under Order 49 of the Civil Procedure  Rules.  There was no such application save the one dated 28th April 1994.  That came  too late in the day  in any event and  the learned  judge  erred in even  considering  the extension  of time  some  12 years  after the event.

14. In this  case, as  Order  50 (6)  of the Civil Procedure Rules  provides for enlargement  of the time  originally  given by the court or set  by the Rules, the applicant  should have  taken advantage  of those  provisions, which   he did not.

15. In John Ongeri Mariaria & 2 others   vs Paul Matundura Civil Application No.  Nairobi 301 of 2003[2004] 2 EA 163 the Court of Appeal held:

“Legal business can no longer be handled in such sloppy and careless manner.  Some clients must learn at their costs that the consequences of careless and leisurely approach to work must fall on their shoulders…..  Whereas  it is true that the court has  unfettered discretion, like all  judicial discretion must be exercised upon reason not capriciously or sympathy alone…..justice must look both ways  as the rules of procedure  are meant  to regulate  administration of justice and they are  not meant   to assist the indolent.”

16. In my humble view, this court  cannot  ignore the Order of  7th September  2016 stipulating  the time frame  within which  the exparte  applicant  was expected to  file the  substantive notice of motion, as it is  only by  filing  the motion within  the stipulated   time that  this court  would then be  vested with the  jurisdiction to hear and  determine  an application  for judicial review.  Non compliance with court order cannot be a procedural technicality curable by application of Article 159 of the Constitution.

17. Odunga J in Republic vs Cabinet Secretary, Information  Communication & Technology& Another Exparte  Celestine Okuta & Others [2016] e KLR was faced with a similar   situation as the one  herein  where the applicant  failed to file  the substantive  motion within the  time frame  stipulated  in the order leave.  In striking out the notice of motion, the learned judge held, and I agree:

“In my view, court orders are serious decisions that can only be excused  based on material  placed before  the court   and  cannot be  ignored  on the ground that  they are  technicalities.

In my view, the law  is that   technicalities  of procedure  ought not  to automatically lead to  termination of proceedings  and that the court  must have the power to save the same  where  material exist  before the  court to  justify  non compliance.  However, where there is none and where in fact the applicant adopts an incorrect position of the law to justify his inaction, such omission cannot be excused.”

18. In the premises, without  jurisdiction  to consider  an application  filed out  of the stipulated  period, this court would be wasting  all the precious  judicial time  to delve into the  merits of the motion dated  19th September  2016 and filed  on the same day.

19. In the end, I find that there is no competent notice of motion filed before this court which is capable of being adjudicated upon by application of the law.

20. The notice of motion dated 19th September 2016   and filed on the same day is hereby struck out.

21. Owing to the  apparent  familial  relationship between the applicant    and the 1st respondent and the  minor  issue   subject of the proceedings  in the Children’s Court  at Nairobi  Children’s Case No. 249  of 2013, and  considering that the court had  to first determine  this issue of whether there  was a competent   motion before it  without  the input  of the parties since  the court is deemed  to know the law, I order  that each party do bear  their own costs of these Judicial Review   proceedings  which have been struck out.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 21st day of February 2017.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE