Githinji v Koi & 3 others (Miscellaneous Application E028 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3177 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Malindi court struck out a judicial review leave application because an earlier ruling had already cleared the case to proceed directly to a full hearing.
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 Chamber Summons application dated 18th June 2025 seeking leave to file substantive judicial review proceedings is necessary or competent
- 2.Whether the application dated 19/7/2024 required leave or was already accepted as a substantive application
Key legal issues
#Necessity of a leave application in judicial review proceedings
The chamber summons seeking leave was struck out as superfluous because the court's earlier ruling of 10/12/24 had already dealt with and accepted the application dated 19/7/2024 as a substantive application not needing leave
The court traced the procedural history and found that confusion arose because the applicant's counsel mistakenly believed the application dated 19/7/2024 was a leave application, when in fact it sought no leave except an allusion at prayer 5. The court had been misled into withholding its final decision. However, the earlier ruling of 10/12/24 had conclusively treated the motion as substantive, so a fresh leave application served no purpose and was struck out.
Procedural direction for the substantive application
The applicant is to file substantive submissions on the application dated 19/7/2024, with respondents to respond, and the 2nd respondent who was never served entitled to file fresh submissions
Noting that the 2nd respondent had not been served with the leave application or the submissions on the substantive application, the court directed a fresh filing sequence: applicant's submissions within 10 days, respondents' replies within 10 days of service, and a mention for a ruling date, with liberty for the 2nd respondent to file fresh submissions once served.
Legal principles established
#- Where a court has already determined that an application is substantive and does not require leave, a subsequent application for leave on the same matter is superfluous and will be struck out
Court orders
#- 1.The amended notice of motion/chamber summons dated 18th June 2025 is struck out with no orders as to costs
- 2.The applicant shall file substantive submissions on the application dated 19/7/2024 within 10 days from the date of the ruling
- 3.The respondents shall respond within 10 days after service of the submissions
- 4.Parties to appear for issuance of a ruling date on 17/6/2026
- 5.The 2nd respondent at liberty to file a fresh set of submissions once served by the applicant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (order for leave to bring substantive judicial review application)
Relief refused
#Leave to bring the substantive judicial review application (Chamber Summons dated 18th June 2025)
The leave application was unnecessary and superfluous because the court had already, in its ruling of 10/12/24, accepted the application dated 19/7/2024 as a substantive application not requiring leave
Costs
No orders as to costs on the striking out; no costs order made on the directions
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.
This court has however, observed that in the ruling earlier delivered by court on 10/12/24 the nature of the application dated 19/7/2024 as one not needing leave had been dealt with and accepted as a substantive application.
In circumstances, there was no need to revert back to the leave issue. The amended notice of motion/chamber summons is therefore superfluous and is struck out with no orders as to costs.
The applicant shall instead file substantive submissions on the application dated 19/7/2026 within 10 days from today and the respondents shall respond within 10 days after service of the submissions on them
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to 'the application dated 19/7/2026' in the final orders, which appears to be a typographical error for the application dated 19/7/2024 discussed throughout the ruling
The parties are not formally named in the judgment; only the roles of applicant and 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents appear, and the 1st and 3rd respondents' counsel are referred to but the parties themselves are not identified by name
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Githinji v Koi & 3 others (Miscellaneous Application E028 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3177 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLMISCNO 28 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3177/eng@2026-05-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.