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

John Wekesa Khaoya v Ag. State Law Office [2014] KEHC 2170 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 2170 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
2170
Citation
[2014] KEHC 2170 (KLR)
Decided
30 October 2014
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeMiscellaneous ApplicationPostureApplication for exemption from paying court fees to petition a Constitutional PetitionCoramS.M. KIBUNJA
Holding

The application is dismissed as the Applicant has failed to comply with the requirements of Order 33 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the application is rejected under Rule 5 of the said Order.

Facts

The Applicant, John Wekesa Khaoya, seeks exemption from paying court fees to petition a Constitutional Petition to protect Article 3 (1) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. He claims the learned trial Magistrate's order of 22nd August, 2014 requiring the Land Registrar and Surveyor to visit land parcel North Teso/Kamuriai/1326 and establish its boundary is an abuse of office and violation of Article 73 (1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution 2010.

Issues

  1. Exemption from paying court fees for Constitutional Petition
  2. Fair hearing for the Defendant in Busia CMCC No. 130 of 2014

Reasoning

The court found that the application is without merit and dismissed it. The court noted that the intended constitutional petition was not annexed to the application and the court is therefore unable to make a finding on its nature. The court also noted that the Defendant was represented by a learned counsel in the Lower court proceedings and was therefore accorded fair hearing.

Outcome

Dismissed

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010
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 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case