[2014] KEHC 1775 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 1775 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's request for leave to file judicial review orders was made approximately seven years after the Land Disputes Tribunal award, far outside the six-month limitation period prescribed by Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act. The statutory...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 1775 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Godwin Ouma Makube; Respondent: Moses Diru Ambasa
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Busia
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 108 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Judicial Review Orders
Outcome
application dismissed as time-barred
Legal Topics
Judicial Review Leave, Limitation Periods, Land Disputes Tribunal Awards
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Judicial Review Leave Limitation Periods Land Disputes Tribunal Awards

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Godwin Ouma Makube

Applicant

Moses Diru Ambasa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Judicial Review Orders

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to file orders of certiorari to quash the Land Dispute Tribunal decision was filed within the statutory limitation period.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to seek judicial review after failing to appeal the tribunal award within the prescribed time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's request for leave to file judicial review orders was made approximately seven years after the Land Disputes Tribunal award, far outside the six-month limitation period prescribed by Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act. The statutory limitation is strict and not a mere technicality, as affirmed by binding Court of Appeal authority. The applicant also failed to utilize the appeal mechanism under section 8 of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act within the prescribed 30 days. Consequently, the application was time-barred and could not be entertained by the court.

Court Disposition

application dismissed as time-barred

Orders

  • The application is dismissed for being time-barred.
  • No order as to costs.