Esther Kavive v Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court Kangundo & another [2021] KEHC 6659 (KLR)
- Court
- High Court of Kenya
- Case number
- 6659
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 6659 (KLR)
- Decided
- 31 May 2021
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeJudicial ReviewPostureApplication for Leave to Apply for Certiorari and ProhibitionCoramD. K. Kemei - J
Holding
The court granted the application for leave to apply for certiorari and prohibition.
Facts
The applicant filed a case in Senior Principal Magistrate's Court Kangundo in 2009, Charles Kivuva Masesi was the respondent. The case was settled out of court with part fulfillment of the judgment. The applicant made several applications seeking orders of stay and setting aside, which were dismissed. The applicant then applied for leave to apply for judicial review.
Issues
- Whether this court has jurisdiction to handle the matter.
- Whether the Ex Parte Applicant is entitled to the orders sought.
Reasoning
The court has jurisdiction to handle the matter and the applicant is entitled to the orders sought.
Outcome
Granted
Orders
- An order of certiorari directed to the 1st Respondent quashing its decision and ruling delivered in court on 27.03.2018 and the judgement dated 19.08.2015 in civil suit number 288 of 2009.
- An order of prohibition directed to the 1st Respondent or any other subordinate court whatsoever from hearing or further hearing or determining and/ or giving any further orders in Civil suit number 288 of 2009 and the file be transferred to Machakos High Court.
Remedies
- Quashing of the decision and ruling delivered in court on 27.03.2018 and the judgement dated 19.08.2015 in civil suit number 288 of 2009.
- Transfer of the file to Machakos High Court.
Authorities cited
Legislation (2)
- Fair Administrative Action Act No. 4 of 2015
- Constitution of Kenya 2010
Cases cited (1)
- Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board vs Centre for Human Rights and Democracy [2014] eKLR
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.
Loading judgment…