Republic v National Employment Authority & another;Ex Parte Applicant: Satmar Technologies Company Limited & 73 others [2020] KEHC 1133 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION NO. E1148 OF 2020

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

VERSUS

NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT AUTHORITY..........................1ST RESPONDENT

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRAINING AUTHORITY.......2ND  RESPONDENT

EX PARTE APPLICANT:

SATMAR TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY LIMITED & 73 OTHERS

RULING

1. Satmar Technologies Company Limited, the ex parte Applicant herein has filed an application by way of a Chamber Summons dated 4th December 2020, seeking the following orders:

1.  THAT this matter be certified urgent and heard expeditiously on a priority basis.

2.  THAT the court be pleased to grant leave to apply for Judicial Review.

3.  THAT the grant of leave to operate as a stay of the Respondent’s decision which directed all training institutions duly accredited to offer the Homecare Management Course from extending the period of the said course to thirty (30) days from the initial two (2) weeks.

4.  THAT the costs of this application.

2. The said application is supported by a verifying affidavit sworn on 4th December 2020 by Virginia Njoki Murigi, the ex parte Applicant’s Director.

3. A number of observations and findings make it impossible to deal with this application.

4. Firstly, I note that leave is being sought to apply for judicial review, and no specific judicial review orders are indicated in the application. This Court is accordingly not in a position to determine if such leave is justified. Order 53 Rule 1(1) and (2) in this respect envisages the specific relief sought by a party and grounds thereof to be indicated in an application for leave, and provides as follows:

“(1)   No application for an order of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari shall be made unless leave therefor has been granted in accordance with this rule.

(2)   An application for such leave as aforesaid shall be made ex parte 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.”

5. Secondly, the ex parte Applicant has not provided evidence of the impugned decision that is the subject of its application, as the said communication which is averred to in its verifying affidavit to be in Annexure “VNM6”, has not been attached. Thirdly, the application is brought by the ex parte Applicant and 73 other parties who are not named or known, and there is an authority annexed in this regard that is not signed.

6. Lastly, the ex parte Applicant’s application is not supported by a statement as required by Order 53 Rule1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and is therefore incompetently filed.

7. In the circumstances, I hereby direct and order as follows:

I.The ex parte Applicant’sChamber Summons dated 4th December 2020, is hereby struck out for being incompetently filed.

II.There shall beno order as to costs.

8. Orders accordingly.

DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS  4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

P. NYAMWEYA

JUDGE