Ministry had the requisite mandate to write to the applicants. The learned Senior State Attorney referred to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit which state that under the Media Services Act and the Regulations thereof the second respondent is deemed to ho the Secretariat of the Minister. In rejoinder Mr. Nkungu submitted that at this stage all that is needed is to address whether or not leave should be granted, cautioning against going into the merits of the main application. He cited the book of Administrative Law by B.D Chipeta at page 1 (which he promised to provide a copy later), but never did. With respect I entirely agree with Mr. Nkungu learned advocate because what he submitted on is the position of the law. The provisions of Rule 5 of the Law Reform (Fatal Accidents Miscellaneous Provisions) (Judicial Review Procedure and Fees) Rules, 2014, under which this application has been made does not set conditions for granting leave. In opposing this application the respondents have put up a case intended to show that the alleged administrative act was valid. As submitted by Mr. Nkungu, that is not the scope of the matter at this stage. My reading of Rule 5 (supra) shows that an application as this one may even be made ex- parte. Consequently I grant the application for leave to file for judicial review, the same to be filed within thirty (30) days of this order. 4