Isaac N. Ondieki v Ministry of Information & Broadcasting & Public Service Commission (Civil Application 116 of 2000) (Civ) [2001] KECA 23 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to let a litigant sue for free because his case was already filed too late, ruling the permission would be pointless.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant should be granted permission to institute proceedings in the superior court as a pauper.
- 2.Whether such permission could properly be granted where the applicant had been held hopelessly out of time in instituting his original suit.
Key legal issues
#Whether permission to institute proceedings as a pauper should be granted to a litigant who is hopelessly out of time in instituting the intended suit.
No. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that granting a pauper permission to institute proceedings would be an exercise in futility where the litigant is hopelessly out of time.
The court adopted the earlier holding of Gicheru JA that the applicant was hopelessly out of time in instituting his original suit in the superior court against the respondent. Because the only relief sought was permission to institute proceedings as a pauper, and those proceedings would be defeated by the applicant's delay, the court reasoned that granting the permission would serve no purpose. It therefore characterized the application as without merit, dismissed it, and made no order as to costs.
Legal principles established
#- Leave to institute proceedings as a pauper will be refused where the applicant is hopelessly out of time in instituting the intended proceedings, because granting such permission would be an exercise in futility.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's application for permission to sue as a pauper is dismissed as without merit.
- 2.No order as to costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C. Misc. C. No. 1079 of 1999
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not stated in the ruling. The application is described only as one for leave to file an appeal as a pauper in an intended appeal from the High Court; no constitutional or statutory provision is cited.
Relief refused
#Permission to institute proceedings in the superior court as a pauper (described in the application's heading as leave to file an appeal as a pauper in an intended appeal from the High Court).
The applicant had been held hopelessly out of time in instituting his original suit, so granting the permission sought would have been an exercise in futility.
Costs
No order as to costs.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The applicant is, as was held by Gicheru JA hopelessly out of time in instituting his original suit in the superior court against the respondent.
As such, we agree with Gicheru JA that it would be an exercise in futility to grant the applicant what he now seeks, namely, only permission to institute proceedings in the superior court as a pauper.
In the result, the applicant's present application before us to grant him permission to sue as a pauper, is without merit and it is hereby dismissed, but with no order as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The heading describes the application as 'An application for leave to file Appeal as a pauper in an intended Appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Justice Githinji) dated 8th February, 2000 in H.C.MISC.C. NO. 1079 OF 1999', but the body of the ruling treats the relief sought as 'only permission to institute proceedings in the superior court as a pauper' and refers to 'the respondent' in the singular although two respondents are named. The operative dismissal is clear either way.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Isaac N. Ondieki v Ministry of Information & Broadcasting & Public Service Commission (Civil Application 116 of 2000) (Civ) [2001] KECA 23 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2001). Civil Application No. 116 of 2000. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2001/23/eng@2001-02-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.