Abdi v Garissa County Public Service Board & another (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E049 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2798 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.How does an order of prohibition work?
- 2.Has the application been overtaken by events?
- 3.Is the application bad in law?
- 4.Whether the applicant should be granted leave to apply for an order of prohibition against the respondents from conducting interviews, sittings or proceedings on impugned shortlisted candidates
- 5.Whether leave granted should operate as a stay
Key legal issues
#Whether the application to prohibit the interviews was overtaken by events
Yes - the interviews concluded on 20th September 2024 before the order could issue, so prohibition against conducting them could not be granted
The court noted the application sought to forestall interviews scheduled for September 2024. Since the interview date had passed, any orders restraining the interviews would be futile and were refused as overtaken by events.
Whether prohibition could issue against implementation of the interview results
Yes - the respondents did not demonstrate they had already acted on the interview results, so leave with stay against implementation was granted
The court distinguished the concluded interviews from their outcome. Since the respondents' grounds of opposition did not state they had acted on the results, prohibiting implementation remained a live and effective remedy, and leave was granted to operate as a stay.
Whether the application was bad in law for being brought by notice of motion instead of chamber summons
The objection did not defeat the application, given the constitutional injunction against undue regard to procedural technicalities
The applicant invoked Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, which requires that justice be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities, and relied on authority holding that substance should be placed over procedure. No finding dismissing the application on this ground was made.
Legal principles established
#- A court may grant leave for judicial review to operate as a stay against the implementation of the results of an already-concluded process where the respondent has not shown that it has already acted on those results
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the applicant to initiate a judicial review application
- 2.The leave shall act as a stay against the implementation of the results of the interview processes carried out by the Respondents
- 3.Costs of the application shall be in the judicial review application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court over public bodies (judicial review - orders of prohibition), with reference to Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Prohibition against conducting interviews, sittings or proceedings on impugned shortlisted candidates
The interviews had already been concluded on 20th September 2024, so the orders sought were overtaken by events
Costs
Costs of this application shall be in the JR Application.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Because the interview date has already passed, the orders being sought have already been overtaken by events and therefore cannot be granted
The respondents in their grounds of opposition failed to indicate that they have already acted on the results of the interviews conducted. It is for this reason that I allow the order prohibiting the implementation of the results of the interview.
The applicant is therefore granted leave to initiate a JR application which order will act as a stay against the implementation of the results of the interview processes carried out by the Respondents. Costs of this application shall be in the JR Application.
Issues in the judgment
#Applicant's written submissions dated 7th October 2020, an apparent typographical error given the application is dated 18th September 2024
The court granted a stay against implementation of the interview results while stating the orders sought were overtaken by events; the respondents contended the interviews were concluded but the court noted they had not acted on the results, creating an unresolved tension
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Abdi v Garissa County Public Service Board & another (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E049 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2798 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Judicial Review Application (Notice of Motion dated 18th September 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2798/eng@2024-11-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.