[2012] KEHC 3114 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 3114 (KLR)

The court held that the application for judicial review orders of certiorari and prohibition was incompetent because leave was not sought within six months of the date of the award as required by Order 53 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act. The failure to comply with the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] KEHC 3114 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Chairman Kanduyi Land Disputes Tribunal; Respondent: Senior Resident Magistrate Bungoma Law Courts; Interested Party: Ritah Nekesa Simiyu; Applicant: Benjamin Kisaka Muyala
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 68 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judicial Review Orders of Certiorari and Prohibition
Outcome
motion dismissed and/or struck out with costs
Judges
AO Muchelule
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Certiorari, Prohibition Orders, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Registered Land Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Judicial Review Certiorari Prohibition Orders Tribunal Jurisdiction Registered Land Disputes

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Chairman Kanduyi Land Disputes Tribunal

Respondent

Senior Resident Magistrate Bungoma Law Courts

Respondent

Ritah Nekesa Simiyu

Interested Party

Benjamin Kisaka Muyala

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judicial Review Orders of Certiorari and Prohibition

  1. 1 Whether the Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction under section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act to determine ownership of registered land.
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings and award of the Tribunal were a nullity for lack of jurisdiction.
  3. 3 Whether the application for certiorari was incompetent for being filed outside the six-month limitation period under Order 53 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application for judicial review orders of certiorari and prohibition was incompetent because leave was not sought within six months of the date of the award as required by Order 53 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act. The failure to comply with the statutory time limit deprived the court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion, regardless of the substantive merits regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction or the alleged procedural irregularities. Consequently, the motion was dismissed and/or struck out with costs.

Court Disposition

motion dismissed and/or struck out with costs

Orders

  • The notice of motion for judicial review orders of certiorari and prohibition is dismissed and/or struck out with costs.