[2018] KEELC 4275 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 4275 (KLR)

The court held that the applicant failed to provide any good reason for the delay in filing the application for leave to apply for orders of certiorari, as required by Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Since the application was filed more than four years after the Minister's decision, and no explanation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 4275 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Samson Mutuku Ngutwa; Respondent: The Minister for Lands; Respondent: The Attorney General; Interested Party: Kyati Salvation Army
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 258 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Leave to Commence Judicial Review Proceedings
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Certiorari, Limitation Periods, Ministerial Decisions
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Judicial Review Certiorari Limitation Periods Ministerial Decisions

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samson Mutuku Ngutwa

Applicant

The Minister for Lands

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

Kyati Salvation Army

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Application for Leave to Commence Judicial Review Proceedings

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to leave to apply for orders of certiorari to quash the Minister's decision.
  2. 2 Whether the application for leave was filed within the statutory limitation period under Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant failed to provide any good reason for the delay in filing the application for leave to apply for orders of certiorari, as required by Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Since the application was filed more than four years after the Minister's decision, and no explanation for the delay was offered, the court found the application to be time-barred and dismissed it accordingly.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 20th September, 2016 is dismissed with no order as to costs.