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

Republic v County Government of Machakos & another Ex-Parte Elijah Waweru Mathare & another [2015] KEHC 1896 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 1896 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
1896
Citation
[2015] KEHC 1896 (KLR)
Decided
27 October 2015
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeJudicial ReviewPostureApplication for Judicial Review Orders of MandamusCoramNot explicitly named in the text, but implied to be the presiding judge(s)
Holding

The Court cannot compel the County Government of Machakos to issue development plans as it is an exercise of discretion. However, the County Government must provide written reasons for its decision and consider the applicants' application.

Facts

The applicants, Elijah Waweru Mathare and Elizabeth Wanjiku Mathare, are the administrators of the estate of the late John Wallace Mathare. They applied for development approvals for a plot of land (LR No. 337/11112 Athi River) but were denied approvals despite presenting all requisite documents and appearing before relevant authorities.

Issues

  1. Whether the County Government of Machakos abused its discretion in denying development approvals.
  2. Whether the County Government of Machakos failed to provide written reasons for its decision, which adversely affected the applicants' rights.

Reasoning

The Court follows the principles set out in Republic vs. Kenya National Examinations Council ex parte Gathenji & Others (1996) and Republic vs. Minister for Home Affairs and Others Ex Parte Sitamze (2004). The Court cannot compel the County Government to issue plans but must ensure it considers the application and provides reasons.

Outcome

The application for orders of mandamus is dismissed.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (2)
  • Republic vs. Kenya National Examinations Council ex parte Gathenji & Others (1996)
  • Republic vs. Minister for Home Affairs and Others Ex Parte Sitamze (2004)
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