This application by Notice of Motion was filed on
11 th July, 2007. The applicant sought orders by
way of judicial review. The reliefs sought included
orders of mandamus, injunctions and declarations.
The grounds upon which the reliefs were sought
were that the Commissioner of Fisheries and
Officers under his direct supervision and control
closed the applicant’s Factory, recommended
particular changes to be made to the applicant’s
working procedures which was done. That the
Commissioner and his officers thereafter notified
the applicant that the fish it was exporting
contained benzo (a) pyrene which was high and
unacceptable to the European Community. That
instead of educating the applicant of what remedial

steps to take the respondents simply prejudicially
closed the applicant’s factory and withdrew use of
its export number (EAN). It is averred in the
statement in support of the claim that the applicant
sought audience with the respondents but to no
avail and response hence the application. In the
reply thereto the respondents denied the claims
and pleaded that the withdrawal of EAN was
precipitated by the introduction of new control
measures on smoked products in the European
Union.

Parties greed on settlement and the only issue to
be determined was the issue of damages. Court
denied special damages since the applicant relied
on a notice of motion which entailed evidence at
the trial to be by affidavit and yet affidavit evidence
was unsatisfactory