[2021] KEELC 288 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 288 (KLR)

The court found that the application for leave to apply for judicial review was filed within the statutory six-month period as required by Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Law Reform Act. The notice of motion was subsequently filed within the 21 days prescribed by Order 53 rule 3(1). The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 288 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Gerald Nteere M’Archi; Respondent: The Land Adjudication Officer, Meru Central (Ruiri/Rwarera Adjudication Section); Interested Party: John Muriungu Arachi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review Application 20 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Statutory Time Limits, Land Adjudication, Leave to Apply, Preliminary Objection
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Judicial Review Statutory Time Limits Land Adjudication Leave to Apply Preliminary Objection

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerald Nteere M’Archi

Applicant

The Land Adjudication Officer, Meru Central (Ruiri/Rwarera Adjudication Section)

Respondent

John Muriungu Arachi

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the application for certiorari was time-barred under the Law Reform Act and Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the preliminary objection was properly raised regarding the statutory limitation period for judicial review.
  3. 3 Whether the court was functus officio on the issue of leave after granting it.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for leave to apply for judicial review was filed within the statutory six-month period as required by Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Law Reform Act. The notice of motion was subsequently filed within the 21 days prescribed by Order 53 rule 3(1). The preliminary objection was based on an incorrect interpretation of the relevant limitation period, as the six-month rule applies to the application for leave, not the notice of motion. Furthermore, the interested party failed to follow the proper procedure for challenging the grant of leave, as established in case law. The court, having already granted leave and found the application...

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The preliminary objection dated 26.8.2020 is dismissed with costs.
  • Parties are ordered to comply with Order 11 within 45 days from the date hereof.