REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
JUDICIAL REVIEW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. 396 OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION BY UNITED MILLERS LIMITED AGAINST THE KENYA BUREAU OF

STANDARDS FOR ORDERS OF CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS PURSUANT TO THE

PROVISIONS OF ORDER 53 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES, 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 4, 7, 8 AND 11 OF THE FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS ACT, 2015
AND
REPUBLIC  ................ APPLICANT
VERSUS

KENYA BUREAU OF STANDARDS............................................................. 1^ST RESPONDENT

THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS............ 2^ND RESPONDENT

THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL, KENYA REVENUE AUTHORITY...............3^RD RESPONDENT

THE DIRECTOR, PUBLIC HEALTH  ................................................................ 4^TH RESPONDENT

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ANTI-COUNTERFEIT AUTHORITY................. 5^TH RESPONDENT

AND

THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, NAKURU COUNTY.....INTERESTED PARTY
UNITED MILLERS LIMITED.. .EX PARTE APPLICANT

JUDGMENT

Introduction.

1. By way of a Chamber Summons dated 8^th October 2018 expressed under the provisions sections 4,7, 8 and 11 of the Fair Administrative Action Act[1](FAA) and Order 53 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, the ex parte applicant seeks the following orders:-

   i. A declaratory order that the 1^st Respondent has infringed its rights under Article 47 of the Constitution and section 4 (1) of      the Fair Administrative Action Act.

  ii. An order of certiorari quashing the 1^st Respondent’s decision not to release 29,714 bags (50 Kg each) of sugar to the             applicant and for the same to be destroyed in line with the Multi Agency Team release protocol as contained in its letter dated   7^th September 2018.

iii. An order of prohibition directed at the 1^st to 5^th Respondents restraining them from destroying the applicant’s 29,714 bags (50 Kg each) of sugar as stated in the 1 Respondent’s letter dated 7^th September 2018.

iv. Mandamus directing the 1^st Respondent to release the applicant’s 29,714 bags (50 Kg each) of sugar to the applicant.

v. The costs of and occasioned by the Judicial Review application be provided for.

2. The application is anchored on the provisions of Article 47 of the Constitution and section 4(1) of the FAA Act,[2] which guarantees every person the right to an administrative action, which is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. The ex parte applicant contends that the first Respondent, a body established under section 3 of the Standards Act[3] has an obligation to carry out its duties in a way that not only upholds the Standards Act[4] and subsidiary legislation thereunder, but also, in a manner consistent with the terms, principles and values of the Constitution and the FAA Act.[5] Further, the ex parte applicant states that pursuant to the requirements of the Agriculture and Food Authority, Sugar Directorate, on 11^th July 2017, it was granted a licence to import sugar and having been granted an extended pre-shipment approval, it complied with all import procedures and proceeded to import 997.7 Metric Tonnes of brown sugar.

Download Full Judgement (160KB)