Tom Parsaloi Millia & another v Agricultural Finance Corporation & another [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Kajiado
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
E.C. Mwita
Judgment Date
October 09, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Discover the case summary of Tom Parsaloi Millia & another v Agricultural Finance Corporation & another [2020] eKLR, detailing key legal issues, judgments, and implications. Perfect for legal professionals and scholars.

Case Brief: Tom Parsaloi Millia & another v Agricultural Finance Corporation & another [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Tom Parsaloi Millia & Rehema Chebitok Shaban v. Agricultural Finance Corporation & B.K. Sila T/A Legacy Auctioneering Services
- Case Number: Petition No. 13 of 2019
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Kajiado
- Date Delivered: 9th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): E.C. Mwita
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court must resolve the following central legal issues:
- Whether the petitioners had a legitimate expectation that their loan would be waived in accordance with the President's directive.
- Whether the petitioners' right to access information was violated by the 1st respondent.

3. Facts of the Case:
The petitioners, Tom Parsaloi Millia and Rehema Chebitok Shaban, obtained a loan of Kshs. 7,000,000 from the Agricultural Finance Corporation (1st respondent) to purchase livestock, which they invested in farming. Due to adverse weather conditions and the death of livestock, they defaulted on their loan payments. Following a presidential directive on 10th July 2017 to waive loans for farmers in specific counties, the petitioners believed they were entitled to a waiver. However, the 1st respondent recalled the loan, leading to the petitioners filing for relief, claiming discrimination and violation of their rights.

4. Procedural History:
The petitioners filed their initial petition on 10th July 2019, seeking declarations regarding their legitimate expectation of loan waiver, an injunction against the auction of their properties, and information related to beneficiaries of the presidential directive. The 1st respondent opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioners did not qualify for the waiver and that they were willful defaulters. The court examined the submissions and evidence presented by both parties.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The relevant statutes included Article 35 of the Constitution of Kenya, which guarantees the right to access information, and principles surrounding legitimate expectation in administrative law.
- Case Law: The court referenced previous cases, including Kenya Revenue Authority & 2 Others v. Darasa Investments Limited [2018] eKLR, which outlined the conditions under which legitimate expectation can arise, and Katiba Institute v. President’s Delivery Unit & 3 Others [2017] eKLR, which emphasized the importance of access to information.
- Application: The court found that the petitioners did not have a legitimate expectation for a loan waiver since the directive was not specifically aimed at them, as their loan was issued after the relevant period and they were not classified as distressed farmers. However, the court concluded that the 1st respondent violated the petitioners' right to access information by failing to respond to their requests for details about beneficiaries of the waiver.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled that while the petitioners did not prove a legitimate expectation regarding the loan waiver, their right to access information had been violated. The 1st respondent was ordered to provide the requested information regarding the loan waiver beneficiaries within twenty-one days.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this case.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya ruled partially in favor of the petitioners, declaring a violation of their constitutional right to access information while denying their claim of legitimate expectation regarding the loan waiver. This case highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in public institutions, particularly concerning government directives and their implementation. The ruling emphasizes the necessity for public bodies to adhere to constitutional obligations regarding information access.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Tom-Parsaloi-Millia--another-v-Agricultural-Finance-Corporation--another-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1624_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries