20. The respondent went a step further and informed the applicants herein at paragraph 87(ii) of the determination of their right to appeal the determination as provided for in section 64 of the Act. 21. On the euxion of time the respondent submitted that it is highly probable that the applicants jointly, severally and deliberately designed that the respondent would be time constrained having caused delay on their part by deliberately leaving out facts that would be necessary to determine the complaint. 22. In addition, the respondent stated that the applicants participated in causing a necessary extension of time by taking long periods to lay out their claim and by supplying documents outside the mandate of the respondent. 23. The respondent further stated that whereas statutes provide for express timelines for action to be taken, the courts have previously dealt with euxion of time and taken a purposive approach to it citing the Supreme Court case of India in Reserve Bank of India v Peerless General Finance and Investment Co Ltd 1987 SCR (2)1 and Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & another ex parte Selex Sistemi Intergrati [2008]eKLR in Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & another ex parte Kleen Homes Security Services Limited [2017] eKLR. 1st Interested Party: 24. The 1st interested party submitted that the question of time taken by an administrator to investigate and reach a decision has to take into consideration all factors as set out in Telecommunications Research & Action Center vs FCC as cited with approval in Judicial Service Commission v Davis Gitonga Karani [2020] eKLR “ In the context of a claim of unreasonable delay, the rst stage of judicial inquiry is to consider whether the agency’s delay is so egregious as to warrant mandamus.” The court then enumerated several factors, to consider when answering this question. These are- 25. i. The time agencies take to make decisions must be governed by a rule of reasons. ii. Where Parliament has provided a timetable or other indication of the speed with which it expects the agency to proceed in the enabling statute, that statutory scheme may supply content for his rule of reason. iii. Delays that might be reasonable in the sphere of economic regulation are less tolerable when human health and welfare are at stake. iv. The court should consider the eect of expediting delayed action of agency activities of a higher or competing priority. v. The court should also take into account the nature and extent of the interests prejudiced by delay; and vi. The court need not nd any impropriety lurking behind agency lassitude in order to hold that agency action is unreasonably delayed.” The 1st interested party further submitted that the delay was reasonable because the respondent is a fairly new public oce, stating that the nancial and human resources required to investigate and make a decision within the statutory timelines are strained and the parties to the investigation have to respond to the investigative authorities within shorter timelines. kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/258092/ 9