[2017] KEHC 3814 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 3814 (KLR)

The court found that the orders sought to be quashed were issued in 1995 and 1998, and the application for leave to apply for certiorari was filed in 2017, well beyond the six-month limitation period prescribed by Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court emphasized that the rule is explicit and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 3814 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic of Kenya; Respondent: Mwea Irrigation Scheme; Respondent: Senior Magistrate Court Wanguru; Respondent: David Nderitu Gatune; Respondent: Michael Mureria Gatune; Respondent: Danson Macharia Gatune; Applicant: Joseph Gacheru Gatune
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kerugoya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 1 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Apply for Certiorari
Outcome
application dismissed as time-barred
Judges
BN Olao
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Certiorari, Limitation Periods, Succession of Land, Tribunal Awards
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Judicial Review Certiorari Limitation Periods Succession of Land Tribunal Awards

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic of Kenya

Applicant

Mwea Irrigation Scheme

Respondent

Senior Magistrate Court Wanguru

Respondent

David Nderitu Gatune

Respondent

Michael Mureria Gatune

Respondent

Danson Macharia Gatune

Respondent

Joseph Gacheru Gatune

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Apply for Certiorari

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to apply for an order of certiorari to quash the decision and order relating to rice holding No. 185 Tebere Unit 7.
  2. 2 Whether the application for leave is time-barred under Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the orders sought to be quashed were issued in 1995 and 1998, and the application for leave to apply for certiorari was filed in 2017, well beyond the six-month limitation period prescribed by Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court emphasized that the rule is explicit and mandatory, and there was no provision for extension of time in the circumstances. The applicant's previous unsuccessful attempts to set aside the orders did not revive or extend the limitation period. Consequently, the application was dismissed as being time-barred.

Court Disposition

application dismissed as time-barred

Orders

  • The application for leave to apply for an order of certiorari is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.