[2013] KEHC 5767 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 5767 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to file the substantive motion within the 21-day period as required by law, instead filing another application for leave. While the law sets strict timelines for filing substantive judicial review motions, the court retains discretion to extend time in appropriate...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 5767 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Chairman Naitiri LDT; Applicant: Patrick M. Wasike; Interested Party: Fredrick M. Wanyonyi; Interested Party: Johnstone N. Muse; Interested Party: Benjamin W. Wesonga
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 169 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Amend Notice of Motion and Extend Time for Filing Substantive Motion
Outcome
Application partially allowed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review Procedure, Extension of Time, Amendment of Pleadings, Land Disputes Tribunal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Judicial Review Procedure Extension of Time Amendment of Pleadings Land Disputes Tribunal

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

Republic

Applicant

Chairman Naitiri LDT

Respondent

Patrick M. Wasike

Applicant

Fredrick M. Wanyonyi

Interested Party

Johnstone N. Muse

Interested Party

Benjamin W. Wesonga

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Amend Notice of Motion and Extend Time for Filing Substantive Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can grant leave to amend the notice of motion dated 17.12.10 in judicial review proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the court can extend time for filing the substantive motion seeking orders of certiorari after the lapse of the statutory period.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to file the substantive motion within the 21-day period as required by law, instead filing another application for leave. While the law sets strict timelines for filing substantive judicial review motions, the court retains discretion to extend time in appropriate circumstances, particularly where the delay is attributable to counsel's mistake and where prejudice to the opposing party can be mitigated. In this case, the court determined that the delay was due to counsel's error and that it would be unjust to penalize the applicant for this mistake. The court therefore exercised its discretion to extend the time for filing the substantive motion...

Court Disposition

Application partially allowed.

Orders

  • Prayer 2 of the application, extending time within which to commence the proceedings, is allowed.
  • Prayer 1, seeking leave to amend the notice of motion, is dismissed.