Siat Kedie Salat v Commissioner of Prisons [2017] KEHC 4348 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. 42 OF 2012

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY SIAT KEDIE SALAT TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDERS OF CERTIORARI PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS

AND

IN THE MATTER OF LAW REFORM ACT (CHAPTER 26 LAWS OF KENYA)

AND

IN THE MATTER OF KENYA PRISONS   ACT (CHAPTER 90 LAWS OF KENYA AND CONSTITUTION OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF TENDER Q/UOE/15-16/ACADEMICS/088 FOR PRINTING OF EXAMINATION   BOOKLETS

SIAT KEDIE SALAT …………………………………………......APPLICANT

VERSUS

COMMISSIONER OF PRISONS……………….…………….RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

1. On  17th February  2012,  5  years  ago,  Honourable  Korir  J did grant to the  exparte  applicant  herein  Siat  Kedie  Salat  leave to institute  judicial review   proceedings  as sought  in the chamber summons  dated  27th January  2012  and  filed in court  on  1st  February   2012.  The application   was to be instituted within 7 days from the date of issue of leave. However, by  15th March  2012  the  exparte   applicant   had not  filed the   substantive  notice of motion  hence he  sought by  a notice of motion dated  2nd  March 2012  for  enlargement   of time within  which  to file  the  substantive  notice of  motion, which  time had  lapsed  by 24th February 2012.  The application  for enlargement  of time dragged  on and on and  was according to the court record, either fixed for  inter parties  hearing  or mention  on several occasions  but for  one reason  or the other, the parties  were not  ready to proceed  with  the hearing   including   25th July 2012;  24th October  2012;  10th December 2012;  12th February 2013; 16th April 2013; 16th May  2013;  16th July 2013; 16th July  2013;  4th December 2013; 4th February  2014;  and 4th March  2014.

2.  On the latter  date, the court directed  the  Deputy Registrar  to issue  dismissal  noticed  for  8th April  2014 on which date the parties    were absent.  On the  latter  date, a further  order  was made by Korir J  to the Deputy Registrar  to issue  dismissal  notices  for  28th May  2014.

3. The Notice  to show cause why the matter  could not be  dismissed  was  heard  on 28th May  2014  and the  court after  hearing the parties’  advocates  saved the  case  and  directed  that the matter be  heard on  9th July  2014.  It is on the latter date that the application for enlargement of time to file   the substantive notice of motion   was finally heard and allowed.  The applicant  was  granted  14  more  days  to file  and  serve the  substantive notice of  motion, and the  respondents    were allowed   14  days to file   their responses  to the motion from the  date of service,  with the applicant  having  corresponding  leave of court to  file and  serve  a further affidavit  if need  be, within  7 days  from the date  of service.  The matter   was then slated   for mention on 16th October 2014   for further directions.  Again, by the latter date, there was no compliance on the part of the exparte applicant herein with the order for enlargement of time.  On  4th November  2014,  Mr  Kinyanjui  counsel for the  applicant  sought for  more time  to file the substantive  notice of motion as the client had been unable to  raise  shs   17,000 court  fees  for filing,  within the 14 days  earlier on granted on  9th July  2014.

4. The respondent’s   counsel Mr  Odhiambo  did not  object to the  request  and  Honourable Korir J  granted  a further  30 days  to the  exparte applicant  within  which to   file and  serve the substantive  notice  of motion.

5. On 10th December  2014,  Mr Kinyanjui  informed  the court that   they had  filed and   served the substantive application on 13th November  2014 and   served it  on 5th December  2014 upon the respondents and  sought for  a hearing date.

6. This judgment   therefore  determines  the  exparte  applicant’s   application dated  13th  November  2014 brought by way of  chamber  summons   seeking for  the  following Judicial Review  orders:

1. An order  of certiorari  to remove into this High Court and   quash and revoke  the decision  of Commissioner of Prisons contained in a letter  Ref S/23/Vol 23/Vol. III/74  dated  5th December  2011 reverting  the applicant  from Chaplaincy duties  to general duties;

2. An order of prohibition directed at the respondent herein prohibiting them, by themselves, their servants or agents   from executing the decision aforesaid.

3. The costs of damages and interest occasioned by this application be paid by the respondent.

7. The application is predicated  on the statutory statement  and  verifying affidavit of Siat  Kedie  Salat  sworn on  13th  November  2014  and  the annextures  thereto.

8. The  exparte   applicant’s  case as  stated in the facts  contained in the statutory  statement  and  verifying  affidavit   is that  he   was  a Prison Warder constable PF No.  20214/1988020652 attached to Maralal Prison and formerly in Athi River Prison in the Chaplaincy duties.  That he had served prisons for 27 years   twelve of which were in the Chaplaincy.  That he had obtained a degree  in Islamic  Sharia   Law and that on  5th December  2011  the Commissioner of  Prisons  reverted the applicant   from Chaplaincy to general duties  and  a signal  communicated  on  13th December  2011  transferring   him from Athi River  to Maralal Prison.

9. That the decisions  to  re designate the exparte applicant from Chaplaincy  to general duties and to transfer him were illegal, harsh, oppressive, defaming, intimidating, unfair, without any justification, malicious  and  lacked  due process.  That he was condemned unheard.  That the allegations  made against him  that   informed the  disciplinary  action to transfer  him to a hardship  area and reversion to general duties were false, fabricated, baseless, utterly  malicious  and  unjustified.

10.  It was averred that standing orders paragraphs 1 and  2  of Prisons  Chaplaincy Services stipulates that the Chief Kadhi advises the  Commissioner  of  Prisons  on spiritual  disciplines  and  welfare  needs of Maalims and  in consultation  with the commissioner  he  personally  plays  a  part in the  selection  and  appointment   of  suitable  Muslim Maalims.

11. That the  scheme to revert  the  applicant  to  general  duties   from chaplaincy started  on 5th October 2010 when the  applicant   was  unfairly  ordered  to vacate  the  allocated   self contained  house to a single room Mabati house.  That even after  transferring  him to Maralal, from Athi River  Prison,  the  respondent  failed    to provide the applicant  with transport   but instead  forced  him to vacate  the single room  Mabati house  on grounds that he posed  a  great danger.

12. The exparte applicant laments that his record of performance as Maalim had been   impeccable   and impressive as after only one year he initiated and completed    a project for the construction of a mosque   inside the Athi River Prisons compound.

13. The exparte applicant complains that the decision to revert him from spiritual  to general duties has impacted  negatively on him socially, morally psychologically, economically, professionally  and  in terms of   advancement   in his career.

14. That the exparte applicant continues to suffer  public ridicule  and  embarrassment  as a result  of the  impugned  decision of  5th December  2011.  That the aforesaid decision was irregular, punitive, oppressive, intimidating, defaming, damaging   and spoiling his reputation and without any justification.  That no formal charges were preferred against the applicant and that he was never given an opportunity   to defend himself contrary to the Rules of Natural Justice,The  Prisons Act,  Public  Servants   Code of Conduct, Kenya Prison  standing order Chaplaincy service  and  the Constitution of Kenya.

15. The exparte applicant alleges that the impugned  decisions were actuated  by the applicant’s demands  that pertinent  problems  affecting  his  work including  security  in the mosque, trespassers, grazers and office of the  Maalim  be  urgently  addressed.

16. Further, that the decision to revert the applicant  to general  duties  will  curtail  and  frustrate his growth  as  a Maalim  and that the  decision  is contrary   to the Kenya   Prisons  Scheme  of Service  and  Public Code of conduct  related to  Public  Scheme  of  Service.

17. The respondent never filed any replying affidavit or grounds of opposition.

18. Both parties  advocates filed  written  submissions  which they wholly adopted for disposal of the chamber summons  seeking for  substantive  orders of  Judicial Review.

19. The exparte applicant’s  submissions were filed  on  19th January  2017  whereas  the  respondent’s  submissions  were filed   on 23rd  June  2015. According to the exparte applicant, the powers of the Commissioner of Prisons are not absolute.  They are   guided  by prisons standing orders  and the scheme of service  or  prisons uniformed  personnel and that the respondents  have not  proved alleged dishonesty, poor performance  or insubordination  alluded  to in the  letter of  5th December  2011  hence there is no justification for the actions of the Commissioner.

20. That the  respondent  never  denied the  fact that  the  applicant   was  never accorded  any hearing before being  condemned, which  violates  the principles of natural justice and the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.

21. Reliance  was placed  on Republic  vs  The  Vice Chancellor JKUTAT  Exparte  Dr Cecilia Mwathi & Moses  Muchira  Miscellaneous  Application  No. 30/2007  where Nyamu J (as he then was) stated  that though the University  Council was mandated  to hire  and  remove  academic  staff, the court can  intervene  in the following  situation:-

1. Where  there is  an abuse  of discretion;

2. Where the decision maker exercises discretion for an improper purpose.

3. Where the decision maker is in breach of duty to act fairly.

22. In the instant case, it was submitted that this case falls in the above categories of Judicial Review proceedings.  That the applicant  was subjected  to unfair  accusation  of  insubordination  which  were not  substantiated   as he  was never  given  a chance   to respond  to the same before actions  were taken  against him.

23.  It was also submitted that the relegation of the  applicant  to a single  room; and  transfer  affected  him as his wife   was to deliver the same  month and  his child was to  join secondary school  which affected him negatively  as his salary   was  also reduced.  Reliance  was placed on  John Ogendo  Anyona  v Chief  of Defence  Forces  JR  2/2014  where  Nduma  Nderi J held  that the respondents    exercised  their jurisdiction  unreasonably  and thereby  abused the  authority conferred  to them by statute.  The court   quashed the respondent’s decision to demote   and dismiss an officer of 26 years good standing. In the above case, the respondents were also ordered to reinstate the applicant to his previous position with full pay and to retire him without loss of rank and benefits.

24. It was sub mitted that for the period  the exparte applicant herein worked as  a  prisons warder, no complaint was ever  raised  against him hence it  was demeaning  for the respondent  to  re designate  him from  Maalim to general  duties  and  to move  him  into a mabati single  room  from a self  contained  house.  Further, that his transfer   was malicious   as his seniors demanded from him money thinking he had from donors who supported construction of a Mosque in Athi River Prison.

25. The applicant  maintained  that his  assertions and  depositions  had not  been  controverted  and that  what  he sought  in the application for leave is  what  he sought  in the application for  substantive Judicial Review orders and that  the filing of the  substantive notice  of motion by way of chamber summons   was an  unfortunate  oversight  on his part  which error  is not fatal  to the applications.

26. Reliance was placed  on Republic vs  SPM’s  Limuru Law  Courts  & Others  JR  413/2014  to argue  that rules  of procedure  are  hand maidens and  not mistresses  of justice  and  should not  be  elevated  to a fetish since theirs  is  to facilitate  the administration of justice  in a fair, orderly and  predictable  manner, not  to fetter  or choke  it.

27. Further, it was submitted on behalf of the applicant that in  any event, there is  no prejudice occasioned to the  respondent  by the filing  of chamber summons  instead of   notice of motion  as that does not  go to the root  of and  merits  of the  proceedings.

28. The applicant  submitted  that actions  of the respondent  are in violation  of  Article  28  of the Constitution on the right  of  one’s  dignity to be respected  and  protected.  He prayed for the orders sought and that he be returned to his duties of chaplain.

29. On the part  of the respondent  who did not file  any replying   affidavit   as  none is  on record, it  was  submitted  vide  written  submissions filed  on  23rd June  2015   that the  applicant  filed a chamber  summons for notice of  motion  contrary to order 53  Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Rules  hence the  application is fatally  defective.

30.  Secondly, that the chamber summons  for the main prayers  as prayed  are  different  from the  chamber summons  for  leave  hence  the application  is contrary to the provisions   of Order 53 of the Civil  Procedure  Rules.

31. It was also submitted that in the application for leave, the prayers were for certiorari  and mandamus  whereas  the chamber  summons  for the main prayers  is for certiorari and  prohibition orders hence  there is no application before  the court that  needs  to be  determined and therefore  the chamber summons  should be dismissed  with costs  to the respondent.

32. On whether  the orders sought  can be  issued, it  was  submitted that the applicant had not shown how the respondent’s  decisions was marred  with irrationality, impropriety and  irregularity  and that as to how the respondents   acted  ultra vires, in excess  or  without  jurisdiction  or irrationality  in making  its determination has not been demonstrated.

33. The respondents further submitted that mandamus cannot issue as it will not serve any purpose.

34. On whether the respondents had powers to make the decisions, it was submitted that the respondent had power to make decisions in regard to redeployment.

35. On whether the order of  prohibition  can issue, it  was submitted that the same  had been   overtaken   by events  as the applicant  has already  settled  in his new station  of Maralal Prisons.

DETERMINATION

36.  I have carefully considered  the Exparte  applicant’s  application by way  of chamber  summons  filed on  13th  November  2014   and  dated the same day.  I have also considered the submission filed by both parties’ advocates and cited authorities.

37. In my humble view, the main issues for determination are:

i. whetherthe chamber summons dated 13th November 2014 is properly before the court.

38. On this issue, the respondent  submitted that the applicant’s  application  violates  Order  53  Rule  3 of the  Civil Procedure  Rules  which stipulates that:

“ 3(1) when leave has been granted  to apply for  an order of mandamus, prohibition  or  certiorari, the application  shall be made  within twenty  one days by notice  of motion to the High Court  and there shall   be at least  eight  clear  days  between the  service  of the  notice  of  motion  and the day  named  therein  for the hearing.

39. In the instant  case, it is not  in dispute   that the application for Judicial Review orders  was commenced  on  13th November  2014 by way of  chamber summons  and so   was the application for leave.  That that being  the case, it is  clear  that the provisions   of Order  53  Rule  3(1)  of the Civil  Procedure Rules  on the mode  of instituting  the  substantive  motion after  leave is granted was violated.

40. However, I am in agreement with the exparte applicant that the court should be slow to dismiss the application for want of form.  The error, in  my view, of filing the substantive motion by way of chamber summons as opposed to the notice of motion does not   go to the  substance  of the Judicial Review  application  but is  one of technicality and  which is curable by application of Article 159 of the Constitution which stipulates that justice   shall be  administered  without undue  regard  to procedural  technicalities.

41. Accordingly, I find that the objection raised by the respondent as to the form of the application is without merit.  It is overruled.

42. The second question that the court  must answer  regarding  the  competence  of the application for  Judicial Review  dated 13th  November  2014  is

ii.whether the application is competently before the court since the  prayers  in the application are not  the same  as  the  prayers  for leave as  granted.

43.   Examining  the prayers  for leave in the  chamber summons  dated  27th January  2012, the exparte  applicant  sought  leave of court to apply for  Judicial Review  Orders  of certiorari  and  mandamus  directed   to the respondent   to remove  into the High Court  and  quash  the  decision   of the respondent  to transfer the applicant  from Athi River  Prisons to Maralal  Prisons  and to revert  him from  Chaplain (Maalim  to general duties).

44.  In the chamber summons dated   13th November 2014 the substantive prayers sought   are :An  order  of certiorari to remove  into the High Court  and  quash revoke the decision of Commissioner of Prison  contained  in a letter Ref S/23/VOL.II.III/74 dated  5th December 2011 reverting the applicant from Chaplaincy duties  to general duties; An order of prohibition directed at the respondent herein prohibiting them, by themselves, their servants or agents from executing the decision aforesaid.

45. Rather  evidently, there is  a  difference   in  those prayers  being  sought  at  the leave  stage  and  at the substantive stage. In both  instances, the applicant  seeks  for  Judicial Review  orders s for  which leave   must be  obtained as  stipulated  under Section  9 of the Law  Reform Act  Cap  26  Laws of Kenya and  Order 53 Rule  1 of the Civil Procedure Rules  which  stipulates  that no application  for an order  of mandamus, prohibition  or certiorari  shall be  made unless  leave therefore  has been  granted  in accordance  with this rule. (4) (1)  copies of the  statement   accompanying  the application for  leave shall  be  served with the notice  of motion and  copies of  any affidavits  accompanying the  application   for leave shall be  supplied  on demand  and  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.

46. If follows therefore  that the applicant  is bound  by the grounds and   reliefs sought  in the application  for leave and  cannot be  allowed to substitute  grounds  and  reliefs  set out in the chamber  summons for  leave  except where leave  to amend  statutory  statement  or to file  further  affidavits it sought  and  granted.

47.  Thus, once leave is granted to apply for specific Judicial Review orders, it is those prayers that must be sought in the substantive motion and not new prayers for which leave was never sought.

48.   In this  case,  it is noticeable  that in  the application for leave,  the prayers  sought  and  for which  leave  was  granted to  apply, were  certiorari and  mandamus.  On the other hand, it is  also  evident  that the  prayers  sought  in the main application which was instituted by way of chamber summons dated 13th November  2014  are certiorari and  prohibition.

49. As if that  is not enough, the  prayers  for leave  as sought   are basically   one,  having  regard  to the manner  in which   they are  framed.  This is so because only certiorari   can be   issued to quash and remove.  Certiorari is essentially a two part remedy.  The  first part is an  order removing   the  official record  of the  impugned  decision  maker into the  superior court  issuing  the certiorari  order.  The second part is an order quashing the impugned decision, and the record thereof.  Certiorari is used to wipe the slate clean.

50. Mandamus on the other hand lies to compel   performance of a statutory public duty which is justifiable and unperformed.  Mandamus consists of an order to do a positive act, rather than to desist from doing something.  Mandamus cannot remove the record or quash the decision.  It has no quashing  effect and neither can it prohibit, unlike certiorari.

51. Prohibition has a largely negative aspect.  It prohibits the impugned decision maker and those relying on the decision from doing something illegal which they are about to do, or from continuing on an illegal course of action already commenced.

52. The locus  classicus case on the scope  of the three traditional Judicial Review  remedies of mandamus, prohibition and  certiorari  are  the decisions in Kenya National Examinations Council  vs  Republic  Exparte Geoffrey  Gathenji  Njoroge  & Others   CA  266/1996 (AK) [1977] e KLR   where the Court of Appeal  expressed  itself thus:

“The remedies of certiorari and prohibition are tools that this court uses to supervise public bodies and inferior tribunals to ensure that they do not make decisions or undertake activities which are ultra vires their statutory mandate or which are irrational or otherwise illegal. They are meant to keep public authorities in check to prevent them from abusing their statutory powers or subjecting citizens to unfair treatment. The nature and scope of certiorari was discussed in the case of Captain Geoffrey Kujoga Murungi Vs Attorney General Misc Civil Application No. 293 of 1993where it was stated; “Certiorari deals with decisions already made ….Such an order can only be issued where the court considers that the decision under attack was reached without or in excess of jurisdiction or in breach of the rules of natural justice...”

53. The case of Shah vs Attorney General (No. 3) Kampala HC MC No. 31/1969[1970] EA 543 by Goudie J is also relevant on the scope of mandamus.

54. Mandamus is the appropriate remedy for compelling a person to perform a public duty   imposed on him by statute or rules which govern the administrative body, which duty the public officer or administrator had refused to perform to the detriment of the applicant.  ( see Jotham  Mulati  Welamondi  vs  The ECK Bgm HC  Miscellaneous Application  81 of  2002 [2002] 1 KLR 486  [2008] 2 KLR  (EP) 393.

55. And in the  KNEC  vs  Republic  Exparte  Geoffrey Gathenji  (supra) the Court of Appeal  was clear  that  mandamus  is  a  command requiring a person to do some particular thing  therein  which appertains  to his  or her office  and  is in the  nature  of a public duty and  its  purpose is to remedy  the defects  of   justice.  It is issued so that the ends of justice may be in all cases where there is a specific legal right or no specific legal remedy for enforcing that right.

56. Applying the above principles to this case, in the application for leave, the prayers for  which leave was granted was certiorari  directed  at the respondent to remove  into the High  Court and  quash  the  decision of the respondent to transfer   the applicant  from  Athi River  Prisons  to Maralal  Prison and  mandamus  to compel the respondent  to revert  him from  Chaplain (Maalim) to general duties.

57. However, in the main/substantive application, the prayer for mandamus was abandoned and replaced with prohibition, prohibiting the respondent from executing the decision aforesaid.

58.  It follows that the prayers for mandamus not being in the substantive application cannot be considered by this court as it is not available for consideration.

59. With regard  to the prayer for  prohibition, the  court notes that no   leave  was sought   and  or obtained  to apply  for  prohibition  hence that  prayer in the main  motion is not available for consideration.  Even  if  the prayer for prohibition  was   available  for  consideration, the fact that  the decision  to revert the applicant  from Chaplaincy  duties to  general duties was already executed by the  respondent   as there  was no stay,   and with  the  decision  having taken effect  upon the applicant’s  transfer  to Maralal Prisons  from Athi River  Prisons,  there is nothing capable of being  prohibited.

60. Accordingly, I am inclined  to decline  to consider  for  purposes of this case, the  Judicial Review orders of mandamus  and  prohibition  as  presented  in the applicant’s  application  dated  13th May  2014. I find  and hold that the prayers for mandamus and prohibition are misplaced and misguided and are hereby dismissed.

61. The third issue for determination is

iii.whether the Judicial Review orders of certiorari as presented in court are available  to the exparte applicant.

62. Again, before considering  that issue, it  is important  to  examine  the prayer  for leave  vis avis the prayer  for the main  or substantive remedy.

63. The prayer for leave, for clarity purposes as reproduced above, I shall re-reproduce it here.  It seeks for leave to apply for an order  of certiorari, mandamus  directed to the respondent to remove  into the High Court  and   quash  the decision of the respondent  to transfer the  applicant  from  Athi River  to Maralal Prisons  and  revert   him from  Chaplain ( Maalim) to general duties.

64. The above prayer, compared with the substantive prayer in the application dated 13th November 2014, the latter reads as follows;

“ An order  of certiorari  to remove  into the  High Court  and quash/ revoke the decision of Commissioner of Prisons  contained in a letter Ref S/23/VOL11. 111/74 dated 5th December 2011 reverting  the  applicant  from Chaplaincy duties to general duties.

65. No  doubt,  the prayers are  substantially  apart  in the sense  that  whereas  in the prayer  for  leave  the  applicant  sought  and  obtained  leave to apply for  Judicial Review  orders to  remove  into this court and  quash  the  decision  of the respondent  Commissioner of Prisons  to transfer  the applicant  from  Athi  River Prisons to Maralal Prisons and revert him from Chaplaincy (Maalim) to general duties, in the substantive  prayer, the  applicant  left  out of the part of the prayer for transfer  and  only sought  to remove  into the court and quash  the decision dated  5th December  2011 reverting the applicant  from  Chaplaincy  duties to general  duties.

66. No doubt,  the latter  prayer is not the prayer  for  which leave  was granted to institute Judicial Review proceedings and  therefore the court will not have jurisdiction to consider  prayers  for which  no leave  to apply  was  granted.  I say so for reasons  that where  the prayer for leave is  one, the party cannot  split  that  prayer for  purposes of the substantive  application  at his convenience.

67. Judicial Review remedies are constitutional remedies espoused in Article 23 of the Constitution and Article 47 of the Constitution.  They however remain discretionary remedies and the court may refuse to issue the Judicial Review remedies of certiorari and prohibition especially, even if a substantive review ground has been established.

68. In this case, even if this court  were to accept  splitting  of the prayers  as has  been done  by the exparte  applicant , on the material availed  to court that  he  was  being  stripped  of the Chaplaincy (Maalim) to general  duties, I find  no sufficient  material  to persuade  me to grant him  the remedy  of certiorari.

69. This is because the applicant did not avail to court any  evidence  to show that the position of Chaplaincy (Maalim) was a promotion  of sorts  or that it  was  a permanent  position  and  that on being reverted  to general duties, he was  being  demoted  and that therefore  he needed  to be accorded  a  hearing  in order for  the decision  to be demoted (disciplined) could be  made.

70. The Annextures SKS1 is an identification of the applicant showing that his rank is a prison warder No. 20214 while annexture SKS 2 is a letter of confirmation in appointment as a warder, admitted to permanent and   pensionable –establishment from 25th February 1990.

71. The applicant advanced  his training and  studies  and  obtained a Bachelors Degree  from International University of  Africa  at the Thika  College for Sharia  & Islamic  Studies, Kenya  on  22nd  March  2014.  This was after serving as Chaplain (Maalim) for about 12 years.  He claims to have been a diligent   worker and that therefore in the absence of previous complains against him, the decision to revert him to general duties was malicious.  Further, that the allegations against him were false, fabricated, baseless, malicious and unjustified.

72. Judicial  Review  does not  look at  the merits  of  the decisions  but  the process  of decision making  and  where it  is established that  the  process was illegal, irrational/unreasonable and laced  with  procedural impropriety, the court will intervene.  However, the court has to weigh  one thing  against another  to see whether   or not  the remedy  of Judicial Review  as the one  sought herein is  the most  efficacious  one  in the  circumstances  obtaining.  The discretion of the court being a judicial one must be exercised on the basis of evidence and sound legal principles.

73. Judicial Review  is concerned  with checking  of the  exercise of power  or  statutory duty by public   bodies  and  the court’s  role  in the circumstances  is to  ensure  that those  bodies  do not  exercise  those powers unlawfully, irrationally and  or with  procedural  impropriety.

74.  In Nasieku Tarayia v Board of Directors, AFC & Another [2012] eKLR the court held that Judicial Review is an alternative remedy of last resort and where alternative remedy exists, the court has to be satisfied that judicial review is the most efficacious, beneficial, convenient alternative remedy available for the court to grant.

75. In this case, the applicant challenges the decision to revert   him to general duties   made on 5th December 2011.  He only  filed an application to challenge  the decision  on  1st  February  2012 nearly  2 months   after the  decision  was made.  Although  the challenge was made  within 6 months  as stipulated  in Section  8 and  9  of the Law Reform Act,  the applicant  took  too long  to challenge   the  decision by which time he had already  been replaced  and  he had  already moved by way of transfer   to Maralal Prisons.

76. Being a discretionary remedy, time is of essence   and any delay to seek to challenge the decision must be made expeditiously.

77. Even after obtaining leave  to institute these proceedings, the applicant  took nearly  2 years  to finally  file the chamber summons  dated  13th November  2014  on account of various  reasons  including  lack of legal  fees and  he had to seek for enlargement  of time twice.  He did not  invoke   the  application of Article  48  of the Constitution  which  would have enabled  him to apply  for  waiver  of payment  of part of court fees to  enable him  apply for Judicial Review  orders  expeditiously, yet he was  ably represented  by  an advocate.

78. In addition, this court finds that  the allegations  by the applicant  that he had worked  diligently  and  without  any discipline case or that the allegations against him were false and  fabricated, are  best canvassed in a civil  matter  which he  could have initiated before the Employment and Labour Relations  Court for an appropriate remedy  after that  court had considered  all the evidence  and  merits  of  the case.

79. The applicant’s application basically hinges on the merits of the decision   and not the process.  For this court  to revert  him to Chaplaincy from the general duties which he considers unfair and unjustified, it must  hear evidence  and  or be seized  of the Judicial Review  prayer for  mandamus  to compel  such reversal  of the decision  by the respondent.  This is  so because  the main prayers  do not  seek for  quashing  of the transfer  to Maralal  Prisons   and  as there was no evidence that  in Maralal  he could not  perform Chaplaincy duties,  the absence of the prayer for certiorari to quash  the transfer  to  Mararal  leaves  the applicant  with  an impotent  remedy incapable of enforcement.

80. For the above  reasons, I find  and hold that the Judicial  Review orders   sought in the  chamber summons  dated  13th November  2014 are not  merited.  I proceed to dismiss the chamber summons dated 13th November 2014 with no orders as to costs.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 23rd day of March 2017.

R. E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Mr Munene h/b for Miss Chimau for the respondents

Miss Soi h/b for Mr Kinyanjui for the exparte applicant

CA: George &Gitonga