Miscellaneous 169 of 2011

Help

Advanced Search mode is suitable for finding a particular case when you have details that describe the case at hand e.g. (names of parties, case number, case year etc).
To find a case according to its meta data (names of parties, case number, and date of delivery, case year etc) one need not fill in all the fields. You may use any one or more search criteria; search using whatever information you have..

Download: PDF DOC DOCX PDF With Metadata Docx With Metadata XML Show Metadata

PATRICK MAKASI MUINDI v MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF KITUI [2011] eKLR

Case Metadata
Case Number:	Miscellaneous 169 of 2011
Parties:	PATRICK MAKASI MUINDI v MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF KITUI
Date Delivered:	13 Jul 2011
Case Class:	Civil
Court:	High Court at Machakos
Case Action:	Ruling
Judge(s):	Paul Kihara Kariuki
Citation:	PATRICK MAKASI MUINDI v MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF KITUI [2011] eKLR
Case Summary:	..
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 MACHAKOS

HC.MISC. CASE NO.169 OF 2011

COUNCILLOR PATRICK MAKASI MUINDI.............................................................APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF KITUI..........................................................1^ST RESPONDENT

RULING

I have listened carefully to the several arguments advanced by both learned counsel for the applicant and the 1^st Respondent.

On behalf of the Applicant, the court has been urged that the fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth and tenth Interested Parties were nominated illegally on the 2^nd June, 2009. The Applicant take issue with them having participation in the actions which were placed at the AGM held on the 4^th July, 2011.

In reply, the 1^st Respondent has filed replying affidavit of the Town Clerk Lucy Waema and I have noted the contents of Paragraphs 5 and 6 thereof in particular. The Applicant has not sought leave to file a further affidavit in reply to the matters deponed to therein. He admits that he has not taken any legal action to challenge the legality of the nominations of the said Interested Party. The fact that he was not a party to the proceedings referred to in Paragraph 6 of the replying affidavit does not mean that any orders made in the judgment would not find the 1^st Respondent.

I am not persuaded that the court should grant an order of stay on the basis on the arguments that the nominations were illegality because that is the very essence to be detained in the substantive motion. If the court finds that an illegality has indeed occurred, the court will nullify the elections and order that fresh elections take place. In the result, prayer No.6 in the Chamber Summons filed on the 8^th July, 2011 is denied and dismissed.

The cost of the application be in the main.

Dated and delivered at Machakos this 13^th day of July, 2011 at 6.10 p.m.

P. Kihara Kariuki

Judge

Download PDF DOC DOCX PDF With Metadata Docx With Metadata XML

Please enter advanced search options

Case Content:		Subject:
Case Number:		Parties:
Judge:		Court:
	Delivery Date Range:
From:		To:

Except for some material which is expressly stated to be under a specified Creative Commons license, the contents of this website are in the public domain and free from any copyright restrictions

Case Search

Miscellaneous 169 of 2011

Case Metadata

Please enter advanced search options