[2011] KEHC 2585 (KLR)
The application for leave to apply for an order of certiorari was filed outside the statutory six-month period prescribed by Order 53 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act. The court has no jurisdiction to enlarge this period, regardless of when the applicant became aware of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 2585 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Harrison Chege Maina; Applicant: Samuel Kimemia Gitoro; Respondent: Ruiru Division Land Disputes Tribunal; Respondent: Chief Magistrate Court, Thika
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Case 55 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave for Judicial Review
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DK Musinga
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Certiorari, Prohibition, Limitation Periods, Land Disputes, Tribunal Decisions
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Harrison Chege Maina
Applicant
Samuel Kimemia Gitoro
Applicant
Ruiru Division Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
Chief Magistrate Court, Thika
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave for Judicial Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for leave to apply for certiorari was filed within the statutory six-month period.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to enlarge time for filing an application for certiorari under Order 53 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The application for leave to apply for an order of certiorari was filed outside the statutory six-month period prescribed by Order 53 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act. The court has no jurisdiction to enlarge this period, regardless of when the applicant became aware of the impugned decision. As such, the application is incompetent and must be dismissed for being time-barred.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for leave to apply for an order of certiorari is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
ELC. MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 55 OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY HARRISON CHEGE MAINA AND SAMUEL KIMEMIA GITORO FOR
LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDERS OF CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL ACT NUMBER 18 OF 1990
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL CASE NUMBER 50 OF 2008 AT THE THIKA CHIEF MAGISTRATE COURT
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE RUIRU DIVISION LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL AND THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE COURT, THIKA
RULING
The applicant’s application dated 26th may, 2011 seeks, inter alia, leave to apply for an order of certiorari to bring to this court for purpose of quashing a decision by the Ruiru Division Land Disputes Tribunals dated 10th September, 2008 and confirmed by the Chief Magistrate’s Court, Thika, on 5th January, 2009. The tribunal ordered cancellation of his title to a parcel of land known as RUIRU WEST BLOCK 1/37.
Order 53 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules is clear that:
“Leave shall not be granted to apply for an order of certiorari to remove any judgment, order, decree, conviction or other proceedings for the purposes of its being quashed unless the application for leave is made not later than six (6) months after the date of the proceeding”.
The period of six months is stipulated under Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act, Cap 26. The court has no power to enlarge time even if the applicant became aware of the impugned decision after expiry of six months. See AKO v SPECIAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KISUMU & ANOTHER [1989] KLR 16.
Consequently, the application for leave is dismissed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2011.
D. MUSINGA
JUDGE