SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Ustawi Limited v Municipal Manager, Kapsabet Municipality & 4 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E001 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 1453 (KLR) (14 March 2024) (Judgment)

[2024] KEELC 1453 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
1453
Citation
[2024] KEELC 1453 (KLR)
Decided
14 March 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeJudicial ReviewPostureEx parte application for leave to institute judicial review proceedingsCoramMN MWANYALE
Holding

The Court found that the Exparte Applicant's submissions were not premised on pure points of law and needed to ascertain certain facts, including the exhaustion of internal dispute resolution and the authority of the public officer.

Facts

Ustawi Limited sought leave to institute judicial review proceedings for an order of mandamus compelling the 1st to 3rd Respondents to issue a fencing permit and an order of prohibition against carrying out public participation for change of use of land parcel Nandi/Kapsabet Municipality 417.

Issues

  1. failure to file company resolution
  2. wrongly enjoined 5th Respondent
  3. non-exhaustion of internal dispute resolution

Reasoning

The Court needed to ascertain certain facts, including the exhaustion of internal dispute resolution and the authority of the public officer, as the Exparte Applicant's submissions were not purely legal.

Outcome

The Court dismissed the application as an abuse of the Court process.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Physical Land Use Planning and Land Use Planning Act (PLUPA)
  • Government Proceedings Act
Cases cited (2)
  • Spire vs Land Registrar & 2 others 2019 eKLR
  • Physical and Land Use Planning Act No. 13/2019
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.3 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case