On 24.2.26 the court issued directions on how the application dated 30.10.25 would be dispensed with.
On 6.7.26 when the matter came up for purposes of reporting compliance, counsel for the petitioner informed the court that he wanted the court to assign a ruling date for the application dated 30.10.25 since the parties had complied.
On his part counsel for Janet Cherono informed the court that he was disposed and he was yet to file submissions and that he needed one week to comply.
On the part Judy Cheptanui, counsel confirmed that she had filed grounds of opposition and submissions. Counsel for further informed the court that she had filed another application dated 26.6.26 that was pending the court’s directions.He asked the court to hear the application alongside the one dated 30.10.25.
The court notes that the application dated 30.10.25 is at it’s tail end.
The parties who have participated in the application dated 30.10.25 have a legitimate expectation that there shall be an end to litigation.
Judy Cheptanui was all along aware of the existence of the application.
Judy Cheptanui does not tell the court why the application dated 26.6.26 could not have been filed earlier.
Directing that the 26.6.26 be heard alongside the one dated 30.10.25 will no doubt occasion a delay in the determination of the application dated 30.10.25 to the prejudice of the other parties.
The court is of the view the following orders will accord with the fair administrative action dictates and promote the right to heard;
1. The application dated 30.10.25 shall proceed as earlier directed.
2. Janet Cherono shall file and serve submissions within 7 days.
3. The ruling shall be delivered on 25.9.26.
The court was not in a position to upload this ruling at 2 PM given that the judge remained in court until 3.30 pm when he finalized the cause list for the day. Any inconveniences occasioned to the parties is highly regretted.
On 6.7.26 when the matter came up for purposes of reporting compliance, counsel for the petitioner informed the court that he wanted the court to assign a ruling date for the application dated 30.10.25 since the parties had complied.
On his part counsel for Janet Cherono informed the court that he was disposed and he was yet to file submissions and that he needed one week to comply.
On the part Judy Cheptanui, counsel confirmed that she had filed grounds of opposition and submissions. Counsel for further informed the court that she had filed another application dated 26.6.26 that was pending the court’s directions.He asked the court to hear the application alongside the one dated 30.10.25.
The court notes that the application dated 30.10.25 is at it’s tail end.
The parties who have participated in the application dated 30.10.25 have a legitimate expectation that there shall be an end to litigation.
Judy Cheptanui was all along aware of the existence of the application.
Judy Cheptanui does not tell the court why the application dated 26.6.26 could not have been filed earlier.
Directing that the 26.6.26 be heard alongside the one dated 30.10.25 will no doubt occasion a delay in the determination of the application dated 30.10.25 to the prejudice of the other parties.
The court is of the view the following orders will accord with the fair administrative action dictates and promote the right to heard;
1. The application dated 30.10.25 shall proceed as earlier directed.
2. Janet Cherono shall file and serve submissions within 7 days.
3. The ruling shall be delivered on 25.9.26.
The court was not in a position to upload this ruling at 2 PM given that the judge remained in court until 3.30 pm when he finalized the cause list for the day. Any inconveniences occasioned to the parties is highly regretted.