[2021] KEELC 889 (KLR)
The court found that the application for leave to apply for certiorari was filed outside the statutory six-month period required by Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The law is clear and mandatory, giving the court no discretion to extend the time for filing such...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELC 889 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Shadrack Kirimi John; Respondent: Land Adjudication Officer, Tigania District; Respondent: The Attorney General; Interested Party: Julius Kaugiria Mutira
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 14 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Leave to Apply for Certiorari
- Outcome
- application dismissed as statute barred
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Certiorari, Statutory Time Limits, Land Adjudication, Jurisdiction, Administrative Decisions
- 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
Shadrack Kirimi John
Applicant
Land Adjudication Officer, Tigania District
Respondent
The Attorney General
Respondent
Julius Kaugiria Mutira
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Leave to Apply for Certiorari
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for leave to apply for certiorari was filed within the statutory six-month period.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant leave where the application is filed out of time under Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for leave to apply for certiorari was filed outside the statutory six-month period required by Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The law is clear and mandatory, giving the court no discretion to extend the time for filing such applications. As a result, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the orders sought, and the application was dismissed as statute barred.
Court Disposition
application dismissed as statute barred
Orders
- The chamber summons is dismissed with costs.
- File closed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MERU
JUDICIAL REVIEW APPPLICATION CASE NO. 14 OF 2021
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY SHADRACK KIRIMI JOHN FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR THE ORDER OF CERTIORARI
AND
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 8 AND 9 OF THE LAW REFORM ACT CAP 26 LAWS OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF LAND PARCELS NO’S 4181 AND NO. 2413 KARAMA ADJUDICATION SECTION AND IN THE MATTER OF OBJECTION NO. 2698 AND 2699
AND
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 26 OF LAND CONSOLIDATION ACT CAP 283 LAWS OF KENYA
SHADRACK KIRIMI JOHN..…………………………………. APPLICANT
VERSUS
LAND ADJUDICATION OFFICER
TIGANIA DISTRICT…………………………..………. 1ST RESPONDENT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ………….……………. 2ND RESPONDENT
JULIUS KAUGIRIA MUTIRA ………...…………. INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
1. By a chamber summons brought under Order 53 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the exparte applicant seeks leave to commence judicial review proceedings for orders of certiorari to remove to this court and quash the 1st respondent’s decision made on 22. 11. 2016 in objection No’s 2698 and 2699 for Parcel No. 481 and 2413 Karama Adjudication Section.
2. It is also prayed, the leave once granted to act as a stay any of further proceedings or and implementation of the aforesaid decision.
3. The application is supported by a statement of facts dated 27. 8.2021 and an affidavit by Shadrack Kirimi John sworn on 27. 8.2021. Attached to the verifying affidavit is a consent to sue dated 4. 8.2021 by the Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer Tigania East.
4. Section 9 of the Law Reform Act requires an application seeking for certiorari be made within 6 months after the decision was made. Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rulesstipulates that an application for judicial review orders of certiorari must be brought within 6 months from the date of the decision.
5. In Nyaga –vs- Republic (1990) eKLR 291 the court took the view a court is prohibited from granting leave after expiration of six months of the decision under Section 9 (3) of the Law Reform Actas the law gives no discretion to enlarge that time.
6. In Wilson Oslo –vs- John Ojiambo Ochola & Another (1996) eKLRthe Court of Appeal held that Order 53 Rule 2 is derived verbation from Section9 (3) of the Law Reform Act hence it is mandatory terms.
7. In the premises I find this court lacks jurisdiction to grant leave as the action is statute barred. The chamber summons herein is dismissed with costs.
8. File closed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS AT MERU THIS 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
In presence of:
Kimathi for the respondents
Orimbo for applicant
Court Assistant - Kananu
HON. C.K. NZILI
ELC JUDGE