Fredrick Ouma Jowi & another v Board of Directors, Anti-Counterfeit Authority; Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission & 2 others (Interested Parties) [2021] KEELRC 1606 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court struck out a petition and refused stay orders challenging a public appointment because the appointment had already ended, making the case moot.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether stay orders can issue over actions that have already taken place
No - such orders would be granted in vain and cannot issue
Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, the Petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case with probability of success. The impugned appointment had already occurred and the 2nd Interested Party had been replaced as Acting Executive Director by Fridah Kaberia, so any stay would be ineffective. The court invoked the principle that it cannot make orders in vain, citing B v Attorney General and Eric V.J. Makokha v Lawrence Sagini. Injunctive and stay orders are discretionary, limited in scope and reserved for the most deserving circumstances.
Whether the Petition remains justiciable given subsequent events
The Petition is moot and struck out
By the time of the ruling, the 2nd Interested Party was no longer the Acting Executive Director of the Respondent, having been replaced at the 3rd Special Board Meeting held on 25th September 2020 when Fridah Kaberia was appointed Acting Executive Director for six months. The court held that the Petition had been overtaken by events, was moot and a mere academic exercise whose further entertainment would waste scarce judicial resources, and accordingly struck it out.
Legal principles established
#- A court cannot grant orders which would be ineffective or incapable of enforcement; orders in vain expose the court to ridicule
- A petition overtaken by events and rendered moot is an academic exercise that should not be entertained
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 21st September 2020 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent and the 1st and 2nd Interested Parties
- 2.The Petition is struck out as overtaken by events, moot and an academic exercise
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 10, 27, 73 and 232 of the Constitution of Kenya (Chapter Six integrity and national values provisions invoked in support of the Petition)
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, "Fredrick Ouma Jowi & another v Board of Directors, Anti-Counterfeit Authority; Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission & 2 others (Interested Parties) [2021] KEELRC 1606 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Petition dated 2020 (Notice of Motion dated 21st September 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1606/eng@2021-01-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.