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

Republic v Retirement Benefits Appeals Tribunal & 5 others Ex-parte Willy Jeremiah Ombese [2014] KEHC 5331 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 5331 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
5331
Citation
[2014] KEHC 5331 (KLR)
Decided
15 May 2014
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeJudicial ReviewPostureEx-parte application for certiorari and mandamusCoramD.S. MAJAN, Madan
Holding

The court declines to strike out the motion as the ends of justice would not be met by taking such drastic action. The ex-parte applicant is directed to file an affidavit verifying the decision in Retirement Benefits Appeals Tribunal, Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2009.

Facts

The applicant seeks to quash a decision of the Retirement Benefits Appeal Tribunal (RBAT) regarding pension calculations, claiming it was contrary to the scheme's rules. The applicant's counsel states that the decision sought to be quashed is not the one annexed to the applicant's verifying affidavit.

Issues

  1. Whether the ex-parte application is competent to seek to quash a decision not annexed to the verifying affidavit.
  2. Whether the failure to annex the decision is a material defect that vitiated the application.

Reasoning

The court finds that the applicant's counsel made an inadvertent error in not annexing the decision to the verifying affidavit. The court does not consider it proper to penalize the applicant for this error and directs the applicant to file the verified decision.

Outcome

The ex-parte application is not struck out.

Orders

  • The ex-parte applicant is directed to file an affidavit verifying the decision in Retirement Benefits Appeals Tribunal, Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2009.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (2)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] E.A 696
  • Murai v Murai (No.4) [1982] KLR 38, 47
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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case