Republic v Registrar of Societies, Association of Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers, Daniel C.A. Sanga, Kiprono Chepkok & Calistus Sabini Butiya [2016] KEHC 362 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  279   OF 2016

IN THE MATER OF:  AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

AND

IN THE MATTER OF:  AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS FOR ORDERS OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS   AND PROHIBITION.

AND

IN THE MATER OF:  THE SOCIETIES ACT (CAP 108) LAWS OF KENYA

IN THE MATTER OF: THE MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNICIANS AND TECHNOLOGISTS ACT (CAP 233A) LAWS OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF: THE FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ACT, 2015, LAWS OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF: THE BY-LAWS (CONSTITUTION) OF THE ASSOCIATION OF KENYA MEDICAL LABORATORY SCIENTIFIC OFFICERS

AND

IN THE MATTER OF: DECISION  BY THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES  ALLEGING  CONTRAVENTIONS   SECTION  31(4)  AND  30(4)  OF THE  SOCIETIES  ACT (CAP 108) LAWS OF KENYA CONTAINED  IN LETTERS  DATED  16. 3.  2016   AND 22. 3.2016 RESPECTIVELY.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF: DECISION  BY THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES  TO THE APPLICANTS   CONTAINED  IN A  LETTER DATED  21. 4.2016  CALLING   FOR A CONVENING  OF THE ANNUAL  GENERAL  MEETING  AND  ELECTION  OF NEW  OFFICIALS  WITHIN THE NEXT  60  DAYS.

BETWEEN

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

VERSUS

REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES ......................................….RESPONDENT

AND

ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL LABORATORY

SCIENTIFIC  OFFICERS .................................1ST INTERESTED PARTY

DANIEL C.A. SANGA.....................................2ND INTERESTED PARTY

KIPRONO CHEPKOK................................…3RD INTERESTED PARTY

CALISTUS SABINI BUTIYA………....……...4TH INTERESTED PARTY

RULING

1. By notice  of motion dated  3rd  November  2016  and  filed on  the same date  supported   by the affidavit sworn  by Mr  Steven  Nzaku advocate for   the exparte  applicants, counsel sought for leave  of  court to cease  acting for  his  clients.  The  grounds  are on  the face of the record,  principally, that counsel  was constrained to cease  acting for his clients  after this court struck out their  replying  affidavit  to the application for contempt  proceedings  which   were due for  hearing   today   and that  he  was only  permitted  to address the court  on points  of law.

2. In his view, contempt  proceedings  are criminal  in  nature  and that  it goes  without  saying that an  interrogation of affidavits  by the  applicants  on the contempt  application and  process server thereof  is critical.  Further, that as  all the  alleged contemnors  having been  in  court  and  having  acceded to his ceasing  to act for them,  he should  be allowed  to let  go the matter.

3. The advocate  for the interested  parties, the respondent and the  exparte  applicants  present do not   oppose the application by Mr Nzaku  to recuse  himself  from representing  the exparte  applicants.  However, Mr  Chebii  and Miss  Mwangi counsels  had a rider  on the ground and deposition  by Mr Nzaku  intimating that his clients  were  not given  a chance  to seek  leave to validate  the replying   affidavit.  They submitted in  agreement  that the court had, before striking out the replying  affidavit  probed  counsel urging  him to  decide  whether, despite  filing the  affidavits  out of time, he still wished to proceed with it  in that manner  and that  Mr Nzaku  had adamantly  refused to seek leave  of court  to validate  or regularize  the said  affidavits.

4. I have carefully  considered the  application by the exparte   applicant’s  counsel  brought  under Article  25(b) of  the Constitution and or any  other enabling  legislation.

5. Although counsel alleges that he  has sought to cease  acting  for his clients  after his  client’s  replying  affidavits  were  struck out, he   has himself  to blame  and this court  shall not  share  in that blame.  Counsel   was  on 17th October  2016   granted  7 days which he  had asked  within which to file a replying  affidavit  on behalf of his clients  and he did  not.  He filed on 1st November 2016 well out of time and when he appeared today, he declined to seek to validate the said affidavits.

6. The law is clear that a replying affidavit or grounds of opposition must be filed and served   3 clear days   before the hearing date.  However, where it is clear  that the court  gave  7 days, it was  imperative  upon the party  to file the  affidavit  within  7 days  as  stipulated  in the order, or  apply  to court  orally or in writing  for enlargement  of time  under  Order  50 Rule  6 of the Civil Procedure  Rules.

7. Counsel for the exparte applicants did not see that need. Nonetheless, he now wishes to shift the blame to court for his own deeds.  Be as  it may, as the application is not opposed, and as his ceasing  to act  for the exparte  applicants  will  not in  any way prejudice the exparte  applicants   who have  an opportunity  to be represented  by another  advocate  of their  own choice,  this court  hereby  grants the orders sought  in the application  by Mr Nzaku  dated  3rd November  2016  without any  orders  as to costs.

8. Having so granted the leave to cease acting for the exparte applicants, counsel is hereby directed to formally file a notice of cessation to act for his clients.

9. This court  does recognize the  parties’ rights  to accessing  justice under Article  48 of the Constitution, as well as  their right  to a fair  hearing as stipulated in Article  50 of the  Constitution, which right cannot be limited.  Accordingly, as   prayed by  the exparte  applicants  they are hereby  granted  14 days from the date  hereof, within which to seek services  of another advocate  of their  own choice, to effectively represent  them in this mater.

10. Indeed, contempt of court proceedings are quasi criminal in nature but that does not mean that the allege contemnors y are guilty as charged.  The applicant is under a heavy burden to prove the allegations and therefore the alleged contemnors have an opportunity to be adequately represented at the hearing.

11. In  the circumstances, I  exercise  my discretion  under Sections 1, 1A, 3 and 3A  of the Civil Procedure Act  and Article  159  of the Constitution and  vacate  my orders   on hearing   of the contempt   application today and  direct that  the exparte applicants  do file and serve  upon the respondents  and  the interested  parties  a replying  affidavit(s)  to the application  for contempt  within 14 days  from the date  hereof.  Mention on 23rd November 2016 for directions.

Orders accordingly.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

3/11/2016