Guyo Shanda Umuro v County Govrnment of Marsabit,Department of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries Development & 2 others; Wato Denge Halake (Interested Party) [2019] KEELRC 1292 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court clarified that leave for judicial review was never actually granted on 24 December 2018, only a hearing date, and directed an orderly hearing of the real applications.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Status of the leave order of 24 December 2018
The order of 24 December 2018 only admitted the institutive application to be heard during the vacation; it did not grant leave to commence judicial review
Tracing the record, the court noted the applicant filed two applications on 24 December 2018: one seeking vacation hearing of a motion that was never on file, and one seeking leave for judicial review with stay. The ex parte order made that day simply allowed 'Application through Summons allowed' without specifying which. The court reviewed the record and clarified that only the vacation-hearing application had been dealt with, explaining the confusion in the file.
Case management of the multiplicity of applications
The court directed that the leave/stay application be heard on a convenient date and that parties address the court on the fate of the multiple applications
The applicant's repeated filings under certificates of urgency, including references to a non-existent Notice of Motion dated 24 December 2018 and duplicated vacation-hearing applications, had engendered confusion in the file. The court declined to determine the applications substantively at the directions stage and instead gave directions for an orderly hearing and for parties to be heard on the fate of the redundant applications.
Legal principles established
#- Where the record shows only a vacation-hearing application was allowed, no substantive leave for judicial review is deemed granted
Court orders
#- 1.The application for leave and that leave do operate as a stay to be heard on a mutually convenient date to be scheduled hereinafter
- 2.The parties to address the Court on what should happen to the multiple applications on record
- 3.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act; Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015; Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (judicial review jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Guyo Shanda Umuro v County Govrnment of Marsabit,Department of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries Development & 2 others; Wato Denge Halake (Interested Party) [2019] KEELRC 1292 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). JR Cause No. 39 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1292/eng@2019-06-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.