Republic v The Kenya Medical Laboratory Technicians And Technologists Board Ex-Parte Edna Mwende Kavindu [2017] KEHC 7788 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW  NO.  130 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF THE KENYA MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNICIANS AND TECHNOLOGISTS BOARD

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 8 AND 9 OF THE LAW REFORM ACT, SECTION 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010, SECTION 5 OF THE MEDICAL LABORATORIES TECHNICIANS AND TECHNOLOGISTS ACT, SECTION 3 AND 4 OF THE FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ACT.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY EDNA MWENDE KAVINDU FO THE ORDERS OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION

BETWEEN

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

VERSUS

THE KENYA MEDICAL LABORATORYTECHNICIANS AND TECHNOLOGISTS BOARD....................RESPONDENT

EDNA MWENDE KAVINDU..............................................................................................................EX PARTE APLICANT

JUDGMENT

1. By  a chamber summons  dated  15th March  2016   the applicant  Edna  Mwende Kavindu  sought  leave  of this court  to institute  Judicial  Review proceedings  seeking for  Judicial Review orders  of certiorari, mandamus s and  prohibition.

2. On  18th March  2016,  Honourable  Justice Korir granted   to the exparte  applicant  leave to  file Judicial Review proceedings  and  also ordered   that the leave so  granted  do operate  as  stay  of the respondent’s decision  of charging the applicant’s  annual practice  license  from A05218 to MO5218.  The stay order was to be in force for a period of 60 days only but subject to further orders by the court.

3. The applicant    was directed   to file and  serve  the substantive motion, skeletal submissions  and  list of  authorities  within  ten (10) days   from 18th March  2016; and costs of the application   were to abide by the outcome  of the substantive  notice of motion.

4. The matter was then scheduled for mention on 31st March 2016 to confirm compliance and for issuance of further directions.

5. On  31st  March  2016  the matter came up  before Honourable  Korir  J as  scheduled  but none  of the parties advocates   were present  hence the court  fixed the matter  for mention on 20th April 2016  and directed  the Deputy Registrar  to issue  mention notices.  On  20th April  2016, Mr  Mungania holding  brief for  Mr Nzioka  for the applicant  was present  but there  was no  representation on the part of the  respondent.

6. Mr  Mungania  informed the court that  on 18th March  2016   they were  given  ten days  to file and  serve the notice of motion but that   the   court file  went  missing until  7th April  2016  when they  filed the  notice of  motion  and that the  ten days   had already  expired.  He prayed for ten more days to serve the respondent.

7. The court made the following order:

“Court

Mention on 27th April 2016.  Applicant to issue mention notice to the respondent.”

Signed Korir J

20. 4. 2016”

8. On 27th April   2016  both parties  advocates  were present   and  Mr  Enonda  holding brief  for  Mr Githinji for the respondent  informed the court  that Mr  Githinji’s clients  were served on  22nd April  2016  and he had put in a  notice of appointment  on  25th April  2016.  He sought leave to put in a replying affidavit within the next 7 days.

9. Mr  Komu  holding brief for  Mr Nzioka  for the applicant did not object  to that request and the court  gave directions  to the effect that the respondent   to file  and  serve replies to the application and submissions within  14 days   from that date  27th April  2016.

10. Further, that  upon service, the exparte  applicant  be at liberty  to file and serve further affidavits and supplementary  submissions   within 7  days and  highlighting  of submissions  was fixed for  5th July 2016.

11. By  5th July  2016,  Honourable Korir  J had  been transferred    to Busia High Court hence  I was seized of  this matter and only  Mr Githinji counsel for the respondent  appeared  in court  seeking for more time to serve documents  upon the   applicant’s  counsel, which leave  was granted  and the matter  was  fixed for mention on  26th July  2016.

12. I have taken  the liberty to given an  analysis  of the  matter from the commencement  of the proceedings  until the time i took over its conduct from Honourable  Korir J and heard  the parties’ submissions   on  31st  October  2016  for  the very reason  that albeit  leave  to file the  substantive  motion  was granted on 18th March 2016   and  whereas the substantive motion,  according  to the leave  granted  was expected  to be filed  on or before 29th March  2016 which  was within 10 days  from the date of the order for  leave  granted on 18th March 2016, the exparte  applicant  admittedly  filed the substantive  motion on  7th April  2016.  The motion is dated 19th March 2016.

13. No doubt, the substantive motion was filed outside the 10 days   leave granted   on 18th March 2016.  It is  for that  reason  that when the matter came  up for  mention before  Honourable  Korir  on  20th April  2016, Mr  Mungania counsel  holding brief for  Mr Nzioka  for the applicant  intimated  to court  that indeed  they had  filed  the notice of  motion outside  the  10  days granted  on  18th March  2016  and he sought for  ten more  days to  serve   the respondent.  He however did  not seek for  enlargement of  time  for the court to  make any  order enlarging   the period  within  which the notice of  motion  ought  to have been  filed.  Such  application  would have  been made  and considered  pursuant  to the  provisions  of Order  50 Rule  6  of the Civil  Procedure Rules or even under the court’s own inherent   jurisdiction.

14. The record  is clear that  albeit  the learned   judge  Korir J  adjourned the matter  to  27th April  2016 for  mention  and  directed   the applicant’s counsel  to issue mention notice to the respondent, no order enlarging  or extending  the time for filing for  the notice of motion  was sought  and or granted  to the applicant.  The parties then  proceeded  with the  matter on the  subsequent  dates until  the hearing date as if  the notice of motion  was validly on record, as filed  out of the 10 days  stipulated  by the order  of 18th March 2016.

15. Albeit  the parties’ advocates  have ably  put forward  their arguments  for and  against  the substance  of the notice  of motion, this court  must first  and  foremost  determine  whether  the  substantive  motion  is validly  on record.

16. Order 53 Rule 1(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules stipulates:

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

2. An application for such leave as aforesaid shall be  made exparte  to a judge in chambers, and shall be accompanied by a statement   setting   out and  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.

17. From the above  provisions, it is  clear that  for an applicant  to apply  for  Judicial Review  he or she  must apply  for leave  to institute the judicial review proceedings.  Therefore, without  such leave, the court  has no power to hear and grant Judicial Review orders as espoused  in Sections  8 and  9  of the Law  Reform Act which sections of the law  must be   read with  Order  53  of the  Civil Procedure  Rules.

18. Under  Order  53  Rule  4(1)  of the Civil  Procedure Rules, no grounds   shall,  subject  as hereafter  in this rule provided,  be relied  upon or  any relief  sought at the  hearing  of the motion  except  the grounds  and relief  set  out  in the said  statement.

19. The statement referred to in Rule 4(1) is the one that the applicant is required to file with the application for leave.

20. In other  words, once  leave is granted  to institute Judicial Review proceeding the applicant is expected to file the  substantive notice of motion in accordance with the leave  granted under Order  53 Rule (1)  of the  Civil Procedure  Rules. And once  leave is  granted  to the applicant  to  apply  for Judicial Review  orders, the substantive  motion shall be filed  within  21 days  from such dated of leave.

21. In this case, the learned judge  Honourable Korir ordered that the substantive  notice of  motion be filed  within  10 days  from  18th March  2016 and by  29th March  2016 which  was  the last  day, no such  notice of motion  had been  filed.  The motion was filed on 7th April 2016.  The applicant never sought leave of court to enlarge or extend the time for filing the motion as the time originally granted had lapsed.

22. Albeit  this court exists  to do justice  to  the parties, it is an  umpire  and  unless  its jurisdiction  whether inherent   or otherwise   is invoked, it does not   exist to  exercise  unsolicited   advisory  jurisdiction.  It is upon the parties   who approach the seat of justice to ensure that what they seek is available to them.

23. The filing of the  substantive  notice of motion  outside  the period  granted  by the court  goes to the  root and  jurisdiction of the court to entertain  the substantive motion.  It is not a procedural technicality curable by application of Article 159(2) of the Constitution. Where there is no specific application whether formal or informal, made to the court for enlargement of the expired time, this court would therefore not even determine whether the failure to file the notice of motion within the stipulated time granted in the order for leave is excusable or not.

24. Had the exparte applicant sought leave of court for   enlargement  of time within  which to file  the notice of motion and   to deem  the already filed motion as duly filed  within the  enlarged period  of time, this court  would have  considered  that application on its  merits.

25. As matters  stand now, there is no such  application  and  since  the court is  deemed  to know the law, it would not  proceed  to determine  the merits  of the substantive  notice of motion which is  incompetently on  record.

26. I reiterate that albeit  Order  53(3) (1)  of the  Civil Procedure  Rules provides that the leave once granted  to apply for  Judicial Review  orders of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, the substantive motion shall be  filed  within  21 days  of the date  of leave, nonetheless, this court  having granted  a shorter period  than  21 days , it  was  upon the applicant  to file the motion within the  time frame granted  by the court.  Failure to comply with the timelines given by the court renders the substantive motion as filed out   of time inept.

27. This court has  had the opportunity to determine  a similar issue in JR 97 of  2016  Linda Okello  Vs Inspector General of  Police and the National Police Service and Others; citing with approval the  Court of Appeal decision in United  Housing  Estate Limited  Vs Nyals  (Kenya)  Limited Civil Application  No.  Nairobi 84 of 1996   where the Court of Appeal stated:

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

28. Therefore, a party cannot unilaterally choose not to comply with conditions attached to the exercise of the court’s discretion in his or her favour on the ground that he or she ought to access justice.

29. As earlier stated, the exparte applicant in the instant case had the option of moving the court to extend time or seek to regularize the record where the notice of motion had been filed.  By declining to exercise any of the available options, the applicant has effectively disentitled herself of the favourable exercise of the court’s discretion.

30. In Wilson  Osolo  Vs John Ojiambo  Ochola  & Another  CA 6  of 1995, the Court of Appeal while  appreciating   that Section  9(3) of the Law Reform Act, Cap 26 Laws of Kenya; quite  clearly  stipulates  that an application  for 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 prescribed  there under, was nevertheless  of the view  that:

“ It was  a mandatory  requirement   of  Order  53  Rule  3(1)  of the Civil Procedure  Rules s hen 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.

31. In John Ongeri Mariaria & 2 Others Vs Paul Matundura Civil Application Nairobi 301 of 2003[2004] 2 EA 163, the Court of Appeal stated:

“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.”

32. It therefore follows that this court cannot ignore its order stipulating the timeframe within which the exparte applicant was supposed to have filed her substantive notice of motion.  Failure to comply with the court order cannot be a procedural technicality curable under Article 159 of the Constitution.

33. Odunga J in Republic Vs Cabinet Secretary, Information, Communication &Technology& Another Exparte  Celestine  Okuta & Others [2016] eKLR  faced with   a similar   situation   where the  applicant  failed to file the substantive  notice of motion  within the  timeline stipulated  in the order for  leave to apply, expressed  himself thus,  and  I concur that:

“ In my view, court  orders are serious decisions  that can  only be  exercised  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.”

34. For the above reasons, this court finds that to proceed to  determine the applicant’s  notice of motion  on its merits will be  doing no more than engaging in a wild goose chase and achieve  nothing at the end of the day since the motion as filed  is untenably  on record.

35. Accordingly, I find that there is no competent notice of motion filed before this court capable of adjudication on its merits.  The notice  of motion dated  19th  March  2016  and  filed in court  on 7th April 2016  by the exparte applicant  Edna  Mwende Kavindu  is therefore hereby struck  out for  being  incompetent.

36. As the respondent  was all along  oblivious  of this  fundamental  state of affairs  and  point of law and  therefore proceeded  to oppose the motion as  if it  was properly  on record, and  the court having  found on its  own accord  that the  orders of  18th March  2016  were not  complied  with, for , it is upon the court to know the law, and as the flaw is fundamental to the main cause, I order  that each party bear  their own  costs of  the  application  for leave  and  for the  incompetent  notice of motion  as struck out.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 17th day of   January 2017.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Mr Githinji for the Respondents

Edna Mwende the Exparte applicant present( her advocate is said to be engaged elsewhere and send his clerk Sebastian to take the judgment).

CA: George.