1. On 20th November 2025, leave was granted in Milimani HCJR Miscellaneous Application No. E365 of 2025, for initiation of judicial review proceedings, against the respondents, with respect to some public participation exercise that was to be conducted, regarding regulations that were proposed, affecting the private security sector. The substantive motion was to be filed within 5 days. The grant of leave was to operate as a stay.
2. The substantive motion was filed, herein, dated 23rd November 2025. Directions were given on it, on 25th November 2025. They related to service of the motion, the filing and service of responses, and disposal by way of written submissions.
3. Thereafter, another motion was filed herein, dated 4th December 2025, seeking to have several individuals cited for contempt of court, with respect to the stay order that had been granted on 20th November 2025.
4. To the said motion, of 4th December 2025, the 5th respondent filed a notice of preliminary objection, dated 10th December 2025. The issues raised were that the court lacked jurisdiction; the motion was incompetent for non-exhaustion of the mandatory requirements of the administrative remedy, under section 43 of the Private Security Regulation Act, Cap. 207, Laws of Kenya; and the motion offended section 9(2) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, Cap. 7L, Laws of Kenya.
5. That motion, and the preliminary objection to it, was canvassed by way of both written and oral submissions. A ruling was delivered, on 15th April 2026, with the court declaring that it had no jurisdiction, downing its tools over the matter, and directing that the file, in the cause, be closed.
6. The ex parte applicant then filed an application, dated 4th May 2026, seeking orders to stay publication of the private security regulations, pending hearing of the application and of an intended appeal. To that application, of 4th May 2026, the 5th respondent filed a notice of preliminary objection, pointing to the ruling of 15th April 2026, and stating that the court lacked jurisdiction, and was functus officio.
7. The court had ruled, on 15th April 2026, that it had no jurisdiction over the cause herein, and downed its tools, in line with Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” vs. Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited [1989] KLR 1 [1989] eKLR [1989] KECA 48 (KLR). That being the case, it became functus officio, and, on account of want of jurisdiction, it cannot entertain any other business in this matter, thereafter, including entertaining and considering the application, dated 4th May 2026, on its merits.
8. That application, dated 4th May 2026, is before a court which is bereft of jurisdiction to handle the matter, and which had downed tools, prior to the filing of the application. That makes the application incompetent, for it is filed in abuse of court process, and it is hereby struck out. Let the Deputy Registrar move with alacrity, to close this file, and remove it to the archives. Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED, VIA CTS, DATED AND SIGNED IN CHAMBERS, AT MILIMANI, NAIROBI, ON THIS 27TH DAY OF JULY 2026.
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE
Mr. Abdirahman, Court Assistant.
Ms. L. Wafula, Legal Researcher.
Advocates
Mr. Kimanzi, instructed by Mitau Kimanzi & Company, and Mr. Ayugi, instructed by Steve Charles Law Advocates, Advocates for the ex parte applicant.
Mr. Wanjohi, instructed by the Attorney General, for the respondents.
2. The substantive motion was filed, herein, dated 23rd November 2025. Directions were given on it, on 25th November 2025. They related to service of the motion, the filing and service of responses, and disposal by way of written submissions.
3. Thereafter, another motion was filed herein, dated 4th December 2025, seeking to have several individuals cited for contempt of court, with respect to the stay order that had been granted on 20th November 2025.
4. To the said motion, of 4th December 2025, the 5th respondent filed a notice of preliminary objection, dated 10th December 2025. The issues raised were that the court lacked jurisdiction; the motion was incompetent for non-exhaustion of the mandatory requirements of the administrative remedy, under section 43 of the Private Security Regulation Act, Cap. 207, Laws of Kenya; and the motion offended section 9(2) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, Cap. 7L, Laws of Kenya.
5. That motion, and the preliminary objection to it, was canvassed by way of both written and oral submissions. A ruling was delivered, on 15th April 2026, with the court declaring that it had no jurisdiction, downing its tools over the matter, and directing that the file, in the cause, be closed.
6. The ex parte applicant then filed an application, dated 4th May 2026, seeking orders to stay publication of the private security regulations, pending hearing of the application and of an intended appeal. To that application, of 4th May 2026, the 5th respondent filed a notice of preliminary objection, pointing to the ruling of 15th April 2026, and stating that the court lacked jurisdiction, and was functus officio.
7. The court had ruled, on 15th April 2026, that it had no jurisdiction over the cause herein, and downed its tools, in line with Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” vs. Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited [1989] KLR 1 [1989] eKLR [1989] KECA 48 (KLR). That being the case, it became functus officio, and, on account of want of jurisdiction, it cannot entertain any other business in this matter, thereafter, including entertaining and considering the application, dated 4th May 2026, on its merits.
8. That application, dated 4th May 2026, is before a court which is bereft of jurisdiction to handle the matter, and which had downed tools, prior to the filing of the application. That makes the application incompetent, for it is filed in abuse of court process, and it is hereby struck out. Let the Deputy Registrar move with alacrity, to close this file, and remove it to the archives. Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED, VIA CTS, DATED AND SIGNED IN CHAMBERS, AT MILIMANI, NAIROBI, ON THIS 27TH DAY OF JULY 2026.
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE
Mr. Abdirahman, Court Assistant.
Ms. L. Wafula, Legal Researcher.
Advocates
Mr. Kimanzi, instructed by Mitau Kimanzi & Company, and Mr. Ayugi, instructed by Steve Charles Law Advocates, Advocates for the ex parte applicant.
Mr. Wanjohi, instructed by the Attorney General, for the respondents.