[2013] KEHC 2974 (KLR)
The court held that the statutory six-month period for filing an application for certiorari under Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act is mandatory and cannot be extended by the court. The applicant's reasons for delay, including ignorance of the law and financial...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 2974 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Sylvester Okumu Okello; Respondent: Chairman, Funyula Land Disputes Tribunal; Respondent: Chief Magistrate’s Court, Busia; Interested Party: Benjamin Ogale
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 71 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File for Judicial Review (certiorari) Out of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Certiorari, Limitation Periods, Land Disputes Tribunal, Extension of Time
- 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
Sylvester Okumu Okello
Applicant
Chairman, Funyula Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
Chief Magistrate’s Court, Busia
Respondent
Benjamin Ogale
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File for Judicial Review (certiorari) Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to extend the statutory six-month period for filing an application for certiorari under Order 53 Rule 2 and section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act.
- 2 Whether the applicant's reasons for delay (ignorance of law and financial constraints) justify extension of time for judicial review.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the statutory six-month period for filing an application for certiorari under Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act is mandatory and cannot be extended by the court. The applicant's reasons for delay, including ignorance of the law and financial constraints, do not provide a legal basis for extension. The court cited binding Court of Appeal decisions confirming that the limitation period is a creature of statute and not subject to extension by the court, even under the Civil Procedure Rules. Consequently, the application for leave to file for certiorari out of time was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 3rd April, 2012 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
49 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUSIA.
MISC. APP. NO.71 OF 2012.
IN THE MATTER OF THE LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL ACT NI. 18 OF 1990
LAWS OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE REGISTERED LAND NO. SAMIA/BUDONGO/241
AND
IN THE MATTER OF FUNYULA LAND DISPUTE CASE NO. 07 OF 2008
BETWEEN BENJAMIN OGALE BY SYLVESTER OKUMU OKELLO.
AND
SYLVESTER OKUMU OKELLO ……………………………………………..APPLICANT
=VERSUS=
CHAIRMAN, FUNYULA LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL………………1ST REPONDENT
CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT, BUSIA……………………………2ND RESPONDENT
AND
BENJAMIN OGALE ………………………………………………INTERESTED PARTY.
R U L I N G.
SYLVESTER OKUMU OKELLO, who is the Exparte Applicant herein, filed the notice of motion dated 3rdApril, 2012 through Maloba and Company Advocates requesting for leave to file for orders of Judicial Review (Certiorari) out of time in respect of the decision made by FunyulaLand Disputes Tribunal dated 23rd June, 2011 in relation to Land parcel Samia /Budongo/241 and adopted in Busia PMCC. Land case No. 33 of 2008. The application is based on the following grounds:
The time for lodging an application for orders of judicial review has since lapsed.
The Applicant being a layman, was not aware of that fact.
The Applicant had financial constraint preventing him from seeking legal advice in time.
The application is brought in good faith and without inordinate delay.
The court has discretion to grant the extension of time within which to file for certiorari.
The application is also supported by supporting affidavit sworn by Sylvester OkumuOkello on 3rd April, 2012 in which he expounded on the grounds which are set out above. On the day of the hearing counsel for the Applicant did not offer any further submissions other than relying on the documents that had been filed.
The court has carefully considered the application especially the supporting affidavit and found as follows:
That under Order 53 Rule 2 application for leave to apply for an order of certiorari is required to be filed within 6 months from the date of the order complained of. The wording in this rule is in the same terms with section 9 (3) of the Law Reform Act and superior courts have over time ruled that this court has no power to extend the period of six months which is set by the statute. The following decided cases are relevant.
Nyeri HCC. Misc. App. No. 90 of 2003
MOTOKAA NTHAUTHO – APPLICANT
-VS-
JOSEPH NJERU & 3 OTHERS.
RESPONDENTS.
JAMES GITHINJI KIARA –VS- WILLIAM
WACHIRA MWANIKI (2005)eKLR
Republic –vs- Chairman Meru Central District
Land Disputes Tribunal and 2 others, Exparte
Stephen MukumuMwirichia (2006)eKLR
Nyeri HCC. Misc. App. No. 112 of 2008
Dickson MwirichoMuriuki
-vs-
Central Provincial Land Disputes Appeal Committee
& 6 others.
KimanziMboo –vs- David Mulwa, Court of AppealNo. 233 of 1996where the court held that under theLawReform Act, as well as Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules no application for leave can be entertained unless it is made within 6 months of the date of the award or order.
Wilson Osolo –vs- John Ojiambo& Another (1996)eKLR where the Court of Appeal was dealing with an appeal in a matter where the High Court had allowed an application for extension of time to apply for an order of certiorari beyond the six months and held that the six months period for an order of certiorari could not be extended as it was a creature of the Law Reform Act. The court of Appeal held….’’ It can readily be seen that Order 53 Rule 2 is derived verbatim from section 9 (3) of the Law Reform Act. Whilst the time limited for doing something under the Civil Procedure Rules can be extended by an application under Order 49 of the Civil Procedure Rules that procedure cannot be availed of for the extension of time limited by statute, in this case, the Law Reform Act.’’
That as shown on the heading of application dated 3rd April, 2012,the application herein is brought under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and Rules. The decisions of the Court of Appeal cited above, clearly shows that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules relating to extension of time do not apply in matters of applications for certiorari.
The foregoing clearly shows that leave to apply for orders of certiorari must always be applied for within six months. This court has no powers to extend that period as shown above and the application dated 3rd April, 2012 is hereby dismissed with costs.
S. M. KIBUNJA.
JUDGE.
Dated on the 4th Day of July, 2013