Case Metadata |
|
| Case Number: | Misc Civ Appli 3 of 2006 |
|---|---|
| Parties: | Isaiah Olinga Anyasi v Rift Valley Pro Land Appeals Comm & Francis Masinde Matumbai |
| Date Delivered: | 29 Mar 2006 |
| Case Class: | Civil |
| Court: | High Court at Kitale |
| Case Action: | |
| Judge(s): | Wanjiru Karanja |
| Citation: | Isaiah Olinga Anyasi v Rift Valley Pro Land Appeals Comm & another [2006] eKLR |
| Court Division: | Civil |
| Parties Profile: | Individual v Government |
| Case Summary: | [RULING] Judicial Review - leave - application for leave to file for orders of mandamus - mandamus cannot issue against a party who was not a public officer - order that party be excluded from the main application |
| Disclaimer: | The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information |
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE
Misc Civ Appli 3 of 2006
ISAIAH OLINGA ANYASI ...........................................................................................................APPLICANT.
VERSUS
RIFT VALLEY PRO. LAND APPEALS COMM..........................................................................RESPONDENT.
FRANCIS MASINDE MATUMBAI ..................................................................................INTERESTED PARTY.
R U L I N G.
I have seen the application dated 10/1/2006. I have confirmed that all the pleadings are in order. I have seen annexure marked IOA2 which is from the Provincial Commissioner Rift Valley acknowledging that the appeal in question is still pending before the Appeals tribunal. That annexure was written 2 years ago. It is stated that further correspondence has not been replied to. In my view, 3 years is definitely a very long time to be kept in the dark not knowing when an appeal will be heard. There is no indication as to when the same will be heard. Meanwhile, the applicant cannot make use of the land in question.
This in my considered view is a good case for judicial Review. The application by the applicant is therefore allowed. He is granted leave to file for orders of mandamus against the 1st Respondent. It is however noted that orders of mandamus cannot issue against the interested party “FRANCIS MASINDE MUTUMBAI” as he is not a public officer. His name should therefore be excluded when the main application for mandamus is filed. Orders accordingly.
W. KARANJA.
JUDGE.
Delivered, dated and signed today in open court in presence of:-
Please Wait. Searching ...