[2006] KEHC 1576 (KLR)
The court held that judicial review proceedings are governed exclusively by Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 8(2) of the Law Reform Act, which establish a special jurisdiction. The Civil Procedure Act and Rules do not apply to such proceedings. Since the applicant sought extension of time under...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 1576 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd; Respondent: Town Clerk – Meru County Council; Respondent: Permanent Secretary Ministry of Local Government
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 155 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Extend Time for Compliance With Court Order
- Outcome
- application struck out
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review Procedure, Extension of Time, Applicability of Civil Procedure Rules
- 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
Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd
Applicant
Town Clerk – Meru County Council
Respondent
Permanent Secretary Ministry of Local Government
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Extend Time for Compliance With Court Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant properly invoked the jurisdiction of the court for extension of time in judicial review proceedings.
- 2 Whether the Civil Procedure Act and Rules apply to judicial review proceedings under Order 53 Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that judicial review proceedings are governed exclusively by Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 8(2) of the Law Reform Act, which establish a special jurisdiction. The Civil Procedure Act and Rules do not apply to such proceedings. Since the applicant sought extension of time under provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and Rules, the application was fatally defective for invoking the wrong jurisdiction. Consequently, the court lacked the power to grant the orders sought, and the application was struck out.
Court Disposition
application struck out
Orders
- The application dated 2nd June 2006 is struck out.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Misc Appli 155 of 2006
KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD……………........................................................……………….APPLICANT
Versus
TOWN CLERK – MERU COUNTY COUNCIL……...................................................………1ST RESPONDENT
PERMANENT SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT…………………..2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
Before me is the Notice of Motion dated 2nd June 2006 brought under Section 3A and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order XLIX Rule 5 and order L Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The applicant, KCB Ltd seeks orders that the court be pleased to extend time for the compliance with the court order made on 4th March 2005 by the Hon. Justice Makhandia and that the substantive Notice of Motion dated 17th March 2005 be deemed to be property filed on record. He asks that costs of the application be in the cause.
The application is supported by the affidavit of Kairu Timothy Waweru.
The gist of the application is that the applicant was granted the leave of this court by Justice Makhandia to commence Judicial Review proceedings against the Town Clerk Meru County Council and the Permanent Secretary Ministry of Local Government on 4th March 2005. The court ordered that the substantive Notice of Motion should be filed and served within 21 days. They managed to file the Notice of Motion on 29th March 2005 but have failed to serve it.
Even without going into the merits of the application, these are Judicial Review proceedings brought under Order 53 Civil Procedure Rules. Section 8 (2) of the Law Reform Act donates power to the court to grant prerogative orders under order 53 Civil Procedure Rules. The jurisdiction donated by Section 8 (2) of the Law Reform Act is neither Civil nor criminal and therefore the Civil Procedure Act and Rules do not apply in this case. See the case of COMMISSIONER OF LANDS V KUMSTE HOTEL LTD CA 224/1995where the Court of Appeal held that Judicial Review is a special jurisdiction and the Civil Procedure Act and Rules do not apply.
Accordingly I do find that the applicant has not properly invoked the jurisdiction of this court and the order sought would not be available to the applicant.
The application dated 2nd June 2006 is hereby struck out with the applicants bearing their own costs.
Dated and delivered this 20th day of July 2006.
R.P.V. WENDOH
JUDGE