National Social Security Fund v Sokomania Ltd & another [2021] KEELC 1639 (KLR)

The court held that while issuing the impugned orders the magistrate was acting as a judicial body, not an administrative one. Challenges to the merits of such decisions lie on appeal, with review under supervisory jurisdiction reserved for exceptional circumstances. The Applicant's grievances largely targeted the merits of the magistrate's rulings, for which appeal was available.

The court explained that following the 2010 Constitution and the 2015 Act applicants have a choice of routes. Having chosen the Law Reform Act/Order 53 route, the Applicant could not argue leave was obsolete. The purpose of leave is to filter out frivolous or vexatious applications at an early stage.

Although supervisory jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and not where appeal is appropriate, the court was troubled by the challenge to the whole proceedings rather than only orders. The 1st Respondent filed suit seeking possession while the un-stayed tribunal order required it to vacate, creating conflicting orders and a collision between courts. The High Court has a duty to avert the resulting chaos.

Given the finding that the underlying proceedings were an abuse of process and generated orders conflicting with the subsisting and un-stayed tribunal judgment, the court found it appropriate that the leave operate as a stay pending the substantive judicial review application to be filed within 21 days.