Abdi v Garissa County Public Service Board & another (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E049 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2798 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the application to prohibit the interviews was overtaken by events
Yes - the interviews concluded on 20th September 2024 before the order could issue, so prohibition against conducting them could not be granted
The court noted the application sought to forestall interviews scheduled for September 2024. Since the interview date had passed, any orders restraining the interviews would be futile and were refused as overtaken by events.
Whether prohibition could issue against implementation of the interview results
Yes - the respondents did not demonstrate they had already acted on the interview results, so leave with stay against implementation was granted
The court distinguished the concluded interviews from their outcome. Since the respondents' grounds of opposition did not state they had acted on the results, prohibiting implementation remained a live and effective remedy, and leave was granted to operate as a stay.
Whether the application was bad in law for being brought by notice of motion instead of chamber summons
The objection did not defeat the application, given the constitutional injunction against undue regard to procedural technicalities
The applicant invoked Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, which requires that justice be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities, and relied on authority holding that substance should be placed over procedure. No finding dismissing the application on this ground was made.
Legal principles established
#- A court may grant leave for judicial review to operate as a stay against the implementation of the results of an already-concluded process where the respondent has not shown that it has already acted on those results
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the applicant to initiate a judicial review application
- 2.The leave shall act as a stay against the implementation of the results of the interview processes carried out by the Respondents
- 3.Costs of the application shall be in the judicial review application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court over public bodies (judicial review - orders of prohibition), with reference to Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Abdi v Garissa County Public Service Board & another (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E049 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2798 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Judicial Review Application (Notice of Motion dated 18th September 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2798/eng@2024-11-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.