[2020] KEELC 1385 (KLR)
The court found that the ex parte applicant failed to file the substantive motion for judicial review within the 21-day period prescribed by Order 53 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The only documents filed were the statement of facts and verifying affidavit, which do not constitute a substantive motion. As a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 1385 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer (DLASO) Tigania East Subcounty; Interested Party: Peter Kaburuto Kinathi; Exparte Applicant: Solomon Kubai Mugwika
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review Application 13 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Natural Justice, Land Adjudication, Certiorari, Prohibition
- 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
Republic
Applicant
District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer (DLASO) Tigania East Subcounty
Respondent
Peter Kaburuto Kinathi
Interested Party
Solomon Kubai Mugwika
Exparte Applicant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the ex parte applicant complied with the procedural requirements for filing a substantive motion for judicial review within the prescribed period.
- 2 Whether there is a competent suit before the court for determination.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the ex parte applicant failed to file the substantive motion for judicial review within the 21-day period prescribed by Order 53 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The only documents filed were the statement of facts and verifying affidavit, which do not constitute a substantive motion. As a result, there was no competent suit before the court for determination. The court held that non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements is fatal to the application, and therefore dismissed the matter with costs to the interested party.
Court Disposition
dismissed
Orders
- The matter is dismissed with costs to the interested party.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 13 OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR ORDERS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDER OF CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 8 AND 9 OF THE LAW REFORM ACT CAP 26 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE ORDER 53 RULE 1 AND 2 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES
AND
IN THE MATTER OF OBJECTION NUMBER 3586 FOR THE LAND PARCEL NO. 187 & 15454 IN KARAMA ADJUDICATION SECTION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF LAND PARCEL NO. 187 AND 15454 KARAMA ADJUDICATION SECTION
REPUBLIC.............................................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE DISTRICT LAND ADJUDICATION AND SETTLEMENT
OFFICER (DLASO) TIGANIA EAST SUBCOUNTY........................RESPONDENT
AND
PETER KABURUTO KINATHI.............................................. INTERESTED PARTY
SOLOMON KUBAI MUGWIKA.......................................EXPARTE APPLICANT
JUDGMENT
1. On 1/7/2019 the ex-parte applicant a filed chamber summons seeking leave to apply for Judicial Review orders of certiorari quashing the decision and/award of the respondent in Objection Number 3586 of Karama Adjudication Section as the same was reached in breach of the rules of natural justice, and an order of prohibition stopping the respondent and interested party from implementing the decision of the respondent delivered on 8/3/2019 in regard to land parcel no. 187 and 15454 Karama Adjudication Section. The applicant also prayed that leave so granted do operate as a stay of the aforementioned decision. He also sought for costs.
2. The chamber summons application was allowed on 17. 7.2019, of which the exparte applicant was to file and serve the substantive motion within 21 days. It appears that this order was not complied with. In his submissions, the exparte applicant contends that he presented the substantive motion on 26. 9.2019. However, no such application can be found in the court file. What was filed by the exparte applicant is the statement of facts and the verifying affidavit. In any event any application presented after the date of 7. 8.2019 (the 21 days period from 17. 7.2019) would be in contravention to the provisions of order 53 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
3. In the final analysis, I find that there is no suit before me for determination. This matter is therefore dismissed with costs to the interested party.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE
ORDER
The date of delivery of this Judgment was given to the advocates for the parties through a virtual session via Microsoft teams on 25. 6.2020. In light of the declaration of measures restricting court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemicand following the practice directions issued by his Lordship, the Chief Justice dated 17th March, 2020 and published in the Kenya Gazette of 17th April 2020 as Gazette Notice no.3137, this Judgment has been delivered to the parties by electronic mail. They are deemed to have waived compliance with order 21 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open court.
HON. LUCY N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE