[2010] KEHC 823 (KLR)
The court found that the application for leave to seek judicial review orders of certiorari and prohibition was made nearly two years after the adoption of the tribunal award by the Chief Magistrate’s Court, far outside the six-month period mandated by Order LIII Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The provision is...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 823 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stanley Thuo Murunyu; Respondent: The Chairman, Ruiru Division Land Disputes Tribunal; Respondent: The Chief Magistrate Thika Law Courts; Interested Party: Beatrice Muhuhi Mwangi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 588 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Competence of Judicial Review Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed as incompetent for being filed out of time
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Certiorari, Prohibition, Limitation Periods, Tribunal Awards
- 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
Stanley Thuo Murunyu
Applicant
The Chairman, Ruiru Division Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
The Chief Magistrate Thika Law Courts
Respondent
Beatrice Muhuhi Mwangi
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Competence of Judicial Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for judicial review orders of certiorari and prohibition was filed within the statutory time limit.
- 2 Whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the application filed out of time.
- 3 Whether leave granted to file the application was valid.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for leave to seek judicial review orders of certiorari and prohibition was made nearly two years after the adoption of the tribunal award by the Chief Magistrate’s Court, far outside the six-month period mandated by Order LIII Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The provision is couched in mandatory terms, and non-compliance is fatal. Consequently, the leave granted was irregular and should not have been granted. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to address the merits of the application, rendering the substantive application incompetent. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the respondents and the interested party.
Court Disposition
application dismissed as incompetent for being filed out of time
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs to the respondents and the interested party.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.588 OF 2007
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY STANLEY THUO MURUNYU FOR ORDERS OF CERTOIRARI AND PROHIBITION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE RUIRU DIVISION LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL AWARD DELIVERED ON THE 14TH AUGUST, 2006
AND
IN THE MATTER OF LAND DISPUTES ACT NO.18 OF 1990 AND THE REGISTERED LANDS ACT, CHAPTER 300, LAWS OF KENYA
REPUBLIC...............................................................................................................................APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
THE CHAIRMAN, RUIRU DIVISION LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL.................1ST RESPONDENT
THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE THIKA LAW COURTS..............................................2ND RESPONDENT
AND
BEATRICE MUHUHI MWANGI...........................................................................INTERESTED PARTY
EX-PARTE
STANLEY THUO MURUNYU
RULING
The ex-parte applicant herein was aggrieved by the decision given by the Ruiru Division Land Disputes Tribunal. He therefore moved the court for leave to file an application for orders of Judicial Review in the form of certiorari and prohibition.
The said leave was granted and substantive application filed under Order LIII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Rules. The dispute revolves around a parcel of land No. Ruiru East/ Block 1/302. The said Tribunal award was adopted by the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Thika on 21st November, 2006. The application for leave was made on 13th October, 2008. This was about 2 years from the date the ruling was adopted by the court. Order LIII Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules Provides as follows;
“Leave shall not be granted to apply for an order of certiorari to remove any judgment, order, decree, conviction or other proceeding for the purpose of its being quashed, unless the application for leave is made not later than six months after the date of the proceeding or such shorter period as may be prescribed by any Act and where the proceeding is subject to appeal and a time is limited by law for the bringing of the appeal, the judge may adjourn the application for leave until the appeal is determined or the time for appealing has expired.”
It is clear to me that the application by way of Notice of Motion dated 3rd December, 2008 was hopelessly out of time. The proceedings of 21st November, 2008 which led to the granting of the leave are sketchy and lacking in detail.
With profound respect, the leave so granted should not to have been granted in the first place. My next question is, if leave should not have been granted do I have jurisdiction to address the matter before me on merit? The provision cited above is couched in mandatory terms. Non-compliance therewith is fatal and having said so, I cannot address the issues before me. I must therefore lay down my tools and find that the application is incompetent and dismissed with costs to the respondents and the interested party.
Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 3rd day of November, 2010.
A.MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE