Mucheru v Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentist’s Council (Judicial Review Application E128 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 16174 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (11 November 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 16174 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) JUDICIAL REVIEW JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION E128 OF 2025 RE ABURILI, J NOVEMBER 11, 2025 BETWEEN DANIEL MURIITHI MUCHERU .......................................................... APPLICANT AND KENYA MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS AND DENTIST’S COUNCIL .............................................................................................. RESPONDENT RULING 1. The Respondents were served with the application for leave to apply. They have not responded. I have considered the application dated 16/9/2025 seeking leave of court to file Judicial Review orders for mandamus to compel the Respondent to deliver a Ruling in KPMDC Disciplinary Case No. 69/2022. Wherein the Respondent heard the complaint on 23/1/2024 but todate, the 60 days within which Ruling was to be rendered lapsed over 11/2 years. 2. In my view, the applicant has a prima facie arguable case to be considered the substantive stage. I grant leave to apply and direct the applicant to file and serve the substantive motion forthwith in a separate Judicial Review file, and within 7 days of today, enjoining any Interested Parties in the Disciplinary case. Costs shall be in the main motion. 3. This file is closed. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 R.E. ABURILI JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/16174/eng@2025-11-11 1
Original judgment
Daniel Muriithi Mucheru v Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentist’s Council
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.