Republic v Nairobi County Government Director of Public Health & another [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
P. Nyamweya
Judgment Date
October 07, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
2

Case Brief: Republic v Nairobi County Government Director of Public Health & another; Vivo Energy Kenya Limited (Interested Party); Kenmark Trading t/a Foodies Supermarket (Interested Party) [2020] eKLR


1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Kenmark Trading T/A Foodies Supermarket v. Nairobi County Government Director of Public Health & Nairobi City County
- Case Number: Judicial Review Misc. Application No. 106 of 2019
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- Date Delivered: October 7, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): P. Nyamweya
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issue in this case revolves around the withdrawal of the Notice of Motion and accompanying statutory statement filed by the ex parte Applicant, Kenmark Trading T/A Foodies Supermarket, and whether such withdrawal should be granted without an order as to costs.

3. Facts of the Case:
The parties involved include the ex parte Applicant, Kenmark Trading T/A Foodies Supermarket, which initiated the judicial review proceedings, and the Respondents, namely the Nairobi County Government Director of Public Health and Nairobi City County. The Interested Party in this case is Vivo Energy Kenya Limited. The background leading to this case involved the Applicant seeking judicial review, but subsequently, on August 24, 2020, the Applicant filed a Notice of Withdrawal of the Motion dated April 8, 2019, indicating a desire to withdraw the application without costs.

4. Procedural History:
The case began with the filing of a Notice of Motion by Kenmark Trading on April 8, 2019. After a period of consideration, the Applicant decided to withdraw the motion, leading to the filing of a Notice of Withdrawal on August 24, 2020. The Interested Party's advocate expressed no opposition to the withdrawal, which facilitated the court's decision-making process.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the procedural rules governing judicial review applications in Kenya, particularly focusing on the ability of a party to withdraw applications and the implications of such withdrawals on costs.
- Case Law: While specific case law was not cited in the ruling, the court's decision aligns with established practices in civil procedure regarding the withdrawal of applications and the discretion of the court in awarding costs.
- Application: The court applied the relevant rules by acknowledging the Applicant's right to withdraw the motion and the Interested Party's lack of opposition to this withdrawal. The court determined that allowing the withdrawal without costs was appropriate, thereby marking the suit as withdrawn.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the withdrawal of the application by Kenmark Trading without any order as to costs. This decision underscores the principle that parties have the right to withdraw their applications and that costs may not be imposed if there is mutual agreement on the withdrawal.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this case, as the ruling was straightforward and unopposed by the parties involved.

8. Summary:
The outcome of the case was that the judicial review application was marked as withdrawn without costs. This case illustrates the procedural flexibility within the Kenyan judicial system, allowing parties to withdraw applications amicably, thus promoting efficiency in the legal process. The ruling also highlights the importance of mutual consent in legal proceedings, particularly regarding the imposition of costs.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Republic-v-Nairobi-County-Government-Director-of-Public-Health--another-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2525_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries