REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION 72 OF 2011 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR ORDER OF PROBIBITION AND IN THE MATTER OF CONSTITION OF KENYA ,THE TREATIES AND CONVENTION LAWS, LAW REFORM ACT AND CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES IN THE MATTER OF EVICTION BY THE IDSTRICT COMMISSIONER NJIRU IN THE MATTER OF LAND PARCEL L.R. NO. 5908/8 NAIROBI IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION BY NARIDAI MUOROTO SQUATTERS SELF HELP GROUP BETWEEN MAURICE ODUOR…………………………….………………….…….………………….1ST APPLICANT JOHN MAINA ………………………………………………………..……………………..2ND APPLICANT HABAT B MUGANGAI………………………………….……………….…………………3RD APPLICANT (Suing for and on behalf of NARIDAI MUOROTO SQUATTERS SELF HELP GROUP EXPARTE VERSUS DISTRICT COMMISSIONER NJIRU………………......………………...……………1ST RESPONDENT HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL………………………....…………..……..……………2ND RESPONDENT AND
page 1 of 2
MARIA KIRIMA …………………………..……………………….…………….……INTERESTED PARTY TERESIA KIRIMA …………………….....………………………………..…………..INTERESTED PARTY STEVE KIRIMA …………………………...…………………………………………..INTERESTED PARTY WANJAU KIRIMA ……………...…………………………………………………….INTERESTED PARTY JOHN KAMAU KIRIMA …….....………………………………………….………….INTERESTED PARTY RULING The ex-parte applicants were on 22nd August, 2011 granted leave by Wanjiru, J to bring judicial review proceedings. The Judge directed at that time that the prayer for leave to operate as stay be served for inter-partes hearing. This particular prayer came up for argument before me on 15th November, 2011. I have carefully considered the submissions made by each side and find that if I commit my thoughts on those argument in writing, I will end up prejudicing the substantive application which the applicants intend to file. I only want to address one issue namely that the applicants have failed to file the substantive notice of motion within 21 days from the date of granting leave. Looking at the court proceedings of 22nd August, 2011, I get the impression that the applicants were to await the outcome of the application for stay before taking any further action. It is my view therefore that the 21 days will start running from the date of the delivery of this ruling. I have made my stand on this issue at this stage so that it may not crop up in future. After carefully considering the submissions made by the advocates for the applicants and interested parties, I find that this is not a proper case for allowing the leave granted to operate as stay. As such I decline to grant prayer No.3 of the applicants’ chamber summons dated 17th August, 2011. The costs of this application will await the outcome of the substantive notice of motion. The applicants are directed to file and serve the substantive notice of motion within 15 days from the date of this ruling. Thereafter the respondents and third parties shall have 15 days from the date of service within which to file their responses. This matter will be mentioned on 30th January, 2012 for further directions. Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 1st day of December, 2011. W. K. KORIR JUDGE
page 2 of 2