REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE JUDICIAL REVIEW CAUSE NO. 30 OF 2010 BETWEEN REPUBLIC VERSES PERMANENT SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND TURKANA DRILLING CONSORTIUM LIMITED...1ST INTERESTED PARTY LUNDIN KENYA B.V.....................................................2 ND INTERESTED PARTY AFRICA OIL CORPORARTION.................................3RD INTERESTED PARTY PLATFORM RESOURCES INC..................................4TH INTERESTED PARTY CENTRIC ENERGY CORPORATION (NOW 0903658 B. C. LTD)............................................5TH INTERESTED PARTY INTERSTATE PETROLEUM COMPANY LTD...........EX PARTE APPLICANT AND EDWARD KINGS ONYANCHA MAINA...................................CONTRIBUTOR RULING 1. By his Notice of Motion application dated 22 nd August 2017, the 5TH Contributor hereinafter referred to as the Applicant prayed among others that the ruling of this court dated 16 th December, 2010 be rectified and nullified. He has also prayed that the Applicant M/s Interstate Petroleum Ltd be enjoined as a party . 2. The Applicant through his lengthy and at times with mixture of issues explained the genesis of the matter and how he was aggrieved with the decisions of Hon. Justice Koome, (as she then was) as well as Hon. Justice Githinji. In his supporting affidavit he has attached the said rulings dismissed the judicial review application. 3. Hon. Justice Githinji on his part in the ruling dated 20 th May, 2011 decline to recognise the Applicant as a party in the matter and he therefore dismissed the application. 4. The Interested Parties have opposed the said application and have basically raised an objection that the Applicant has no locus as he was not a party to the Judicial Review application herein. They content that the same is generally vexatious and abuse of the court process. 5. The parties have filed written submissions which I do not intent to reproduce here. The Applicant it must be appreciated has been acting
page 1 of 2
alone all through. The pertinent question which I consider preliminary is what the Respondents have raised namely whether in light of the fact that the Applicant was never a party in the Judicial Review cause he can bring such an application. 6. The rulings by Hon. Justice Githinji in my view settled the issue. He was found to be an intermeddler in this cause and thus the door was shut on him. As regards the decision of Hon. Justice Koome, the Applicant was never a party and to the extend he cannot impugned that decision. At any rate the parties to that decision seemed to have been satisfied and have moved on. 7. More significantly the application has been brought inordinately late after very many years yet he seemed to have been on board generally. 8. In dismissing the application therefore I find the same to be vexatious and an abuse of the courts discretion. The application is dismissed with costs to the Respondents. Dated and signed and delivered at Kitale in the open court this 15th day of May, 2019. ___________________ H.K. CHEMITEI JUDGE 15/5/19 In the presence of:Edward Kings Maina – Contrubutor – present Barongo for Mailu for Applicant Barongo for Leshan Court Assistant – Kirong Ruling read in open court.
page 2 of 2