Republic v Chairman of Council TUC & 3 others Ex parte Moes Ekal [2020] KEELRC 1926 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court struck out a judicial review case after the respondents' own lawyer filed submissions supporting it, calling the about-turn a conspiracy to pervert justice.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Effect of respondents' counsel filing submissions supporting the applicant's Motion
The submissions were a fundamental departure from the replying affidavit and unacceptable; the court invoked its summary jurisdiction and struck out the Motion
The court held that submissions exist to persuade the court on the facts as pleaded, and that a party is bound by its pleadings. The 1st and 3rd respondents had opposed the Motion through the 4th respondent's replying affidavit, yet their counsel filed submissions supporting it. The court treated this contradiction as a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and the only suitable remedy was to strike out the Motion.
Authority of the 4th respondent to swear the replying affidavit on behalf of the other respondents
The court accepted the 4th respondent's assertion of authority since the 1st and 2nd respondents never disavowed it
The 4th respondent deponed that he had the authority of all respondents to swear the replying affidavit in opposition to the Motion. The court noted that the 1st and 2nd respondents did not at any point disavow that deposition, thereby accepting the affidavit as the respondents' opposition to the Motion.
Legal principles established
#- A party is bound by their pleadings and a significant departure from them is not permitted
- Counsel filing submissions that contradict their own client's pleadings amounts to a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice which the court will not permit
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's Motion dated 2nd April 2020 struck out under the summary jurisdiction of the Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 258 of the Constitution (locus standi to institute proceedings for constitutional infringement); judicial review jurisdiction under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Chairman of Council TUC & 3 others Ex parte Moes Ekal [2020] KEELRC 1926 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Judicial Review Motion dated 2nd April 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1926/eng@2020-12-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.