https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5051

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU** **ELC JUDICIAL REVIEW CASE NO. E001 OF 2025** **JULIUS K. L MUTHURI THURANIRA..........EX-PARTE APPLICANT** **=VERSUS=** **THE SUB-COUNTY LAND ADJUDICATION** **AND SETTLEMENT OFFICER,** **BUURI SUB-COUNTY......................................1ST RESPONDENT** **ATTORNEY GENERAL....................................2ND RESPONDENT** **=AND=** **JULIUS MBURUNGA LIMBERIA...................INTERESTED PARTY** **JUDGMENT** **Background** 1. The ex-parte applicant, **Julius K. L Muthuri Thuranira**, brought a notice of motion dated 22/10/2025, inviting this Court to exercise jurisdiction under **Sections 8** and **9** of the **Law Reform Act** and **Order 53 rule 3** of the **Civil Procedure Rules** and issue an order of *certiorari*, quashing the decision of the Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer for Buuri Sub County, rendered on 23/7/2020 in **Adjudication Register (AR) Objection No 5331**, relating to land parcel number **Ruiri/ Rwarera/4281** within **Ruiri/Rwarera Adjudication Section**. The said notice of motion is what falls for determination in this Judgment. The two key questions that fall for determination in the Judgment are: (i) Whether the judicial review motion is statute-barred under the Law Reform Act; and (ii) Whether a proper case has been made to warrant issuance of an order of *certiorari*. Before I analyse and dispose the issues, I will briefly outline the parties’ respective cases. **Ex-Parte Applicant’s Case** 1. The case of the ex-parte applicant is that he purchased land parcel number **4281** [***the suit land***] from the late **Muchoki Mwangi** in 1993 as an excision from land parcel number **Ruiri/ Rwarera/784** which had been demarcated. The demarcation records were appropriately adjusted to reflect him as the new demarcated and recorded owner of the suit land. 2. Following an encroachment on the suit land in September 2022, he visited the 1st respondent’s offices to establish the possible cause of the encroachment. He did not get any information from the 1st respondent’s office until early 2024 when he discovered that the suit land had been transferred to another person following an adjudication register objection (AR Objection No 5331) in which the interested party was awarded the suit land on 23/7/2020. He contends that he was never served with any invitation or notice requiring him to participate in or attend the objection proceedings. He was advised to apply for the case proceedings, which he did. He contends that he managed to obtain the case proceedings on 14/8/2025 whereafter he decided to initiate these judicial review proceedings. He urges the court to grant him the order of certiorari on the above grounds. **Respondents’ Case** 1. The respondents opposed the motion through a replying affidavit sworn on 2/2/2026 by **Mary Maina**, the Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer in charge of **Imenti North**, **Imenti South**, **Imenti Central** and **Buuri Sub-Counties**. She also filed written submissions dated 23/4/2026 through ***Ms Esther Wairimu***, a Senior State Counsel in the Attorney General’s Office. 2. The case of the respondents is that the suit land was demarcated, surveyed and recorded in the name of **Julius K. L Muthuri Thuranira** (*the ex-parte applicant*) and measured one (1) acre. The parcel was affected by two adjudication register objections: (i) AR Objection No 3740; and (ii) AR Objection No 5331. Objection No 3740 was filed by **Julius K. L Muthuri Thuranira** who sought to subdivide the land but subsequently withdrew the objection on 13/4/2018. Objection No 5331 was filed by **Julius Mburunga Limberia** [*the interested party*] who claimed ownership of the land and sought to have it transferred to him. They add that Objection No 5331 was heard and determined on 23/7/2020 in favour of **Julius Mburunga Limberia**. The land was subsequently transferred to the Objector, Julius Mburunga Limberia. They contend that the Objection was heard ex-parte because the ex-parte applicant failed to turn up for the hearing, adding that the ex-parte applicant having failed to lodge an appeal to the Minister, the decision of the Adjudication Officer was implemented; the register was finalized and; the interested party was registered as proprietor of the suit land. The respondents state that the title deed relating to the suit land is among the titles pending issuance at the National Tilting Centre. 3. By way of submissions, the respondents argue that the key issue that falls for determination in this suit is whether the motion is properly before this Court. They point out that the impugned decision having been made on 23/7/2020, the limitation period of six months which is prescribed under **Section 9 (3)** of the **Law Reform Act** lapsed in January 2021, hence the motion is statute-barred under the above law. Citing various decisions by the Court of Appeal, the respondents argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a judicial review motion under **Sections 8** and **9** of the **Law Reforms Act** after expiry of the six months limitation period. They urge the Court to dismiss the motion. **Interested Party’s Case** 1. The interested party opposed the motion through a replying affidavit dated 10/2/2026 and written submissions dated 14/5/2026, filed by ***M/s Otieno C & Company Advocates***. His case is that the suit land was affected by two objections: (i) No 3740 and (ii) No 5331. He is the one who filed Objection No 5331 claiming ownership of the suit land. Objection No 5331 was heard and determined ex-parte in his favour on 23/7/2020 and the suit land was transferred to him. The ex-parte applicant did not turn up for the hearing of the objection and did not file an appeal to the Minister. 2. The interested party adds that land adjudication in Ruiri Rwarera Adjudication Section ended and most land owners have been issued with title deeds. He urges the court to dismiss the motion with costs. **Analysis and Determination** 1. The Court has considered the motion, the responses to the motion and the parties’ respective submissions on the motion. The Court has also considered the legal frameworks and the jurisprudence relevant to the key issues that fall for determination in the motion. As pointed out in the opening paragraph of this Judgment, the two key issues that fall for determination in the Judgment are: (i) Whether the ex-parte applicant’s judicial review motion is statute-barred under the Law Reform Act; and (ii) Whether a proper case has been made to warrant issuance of an order of *certiorari*. The court will be brief in its analysis and disposal of the two issues. 2. Through the motion dated 22/10/2025, the ex-parte applicant expressly invited the Court to exercise judicial review jurisdiction under **Sections 8** and **9** of the **Law Reform Act** and **Order 53 rule 3** of the **Civil Procedure Rules** by quashing the decision rendered by the 1st respondent on 23/7/2020 in Adjudication Register Objection No 5331, relating to the suit land. **Section 9(3)** of the **Law Reform Act** contains the following framework on the limitation period within which judicial review proceedings seeking orders of *certiorari* in relation to judicial or quasi-judicial decisions ought to be initiated: ***“9(3) In the case of an application for an order of certiorari to remove any judgment, order, decree, conviction or other proceedings for the purpose of its being quashed, leave shall not be granted unless the application for leave is made not later than six months after the date of that judgment, order, decree, conviction or other proceeding or such shorter period as may be prescribed under any written law; and where that judgment, order, decree, conviction or other proceeding is subject to appeal, and a time is limited by law for the bringing of the appeal, the court or judge may adjourn the application for leave until the appeal is determined or the time for appealing has expired.*** 1. The above framework has been the subject of interpretation by the Court of Appeal in a line of cases. In ***Ako v Special District Commission Civil Appeal No 27 of 1989,*** the Court of Appeal interpreted the Section as follows:- ***“Under section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act (cap. 26) leave shall not be granted unless application for leave is made inside six months after date of judgment. The prohibition was statutory and absolute and was not therefore challengeable under procedural provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules, more specifically Order 49 rule 5 which made provision for the enlargement of time. That was the basis of the contention that the prohibitive nature of section 9(3) was capable of bearing such a liberal interpretation as would make it permissible for the court to enlarge time beyond the period of six months. The prohibition was absolute and any other interpretation or view of the particular provision would be doing violence to the very clear provision of section 9(3).*** 1. In ***Wilson Osolo v John Ojiambo Ochola & another (1996) KECA 217 (KLR)***, the Court of Appeal interpreted the Section as follows: ***“Mr. Niare then in a separate suit (H.C. Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 35 of 1983) applied for extension of time to file the application for such leave. That application was heard ex-parte by Platt J. (as he then was) and was granted. There was quite clearly a fundamental error on the part of the Superior Court in granting such extension of time as Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act, Cap 26 Laws of Kenya, quite clearly shows that an application for leave to apply for an order of certiorari cannot be made six months after the date of the order sought to be quashed.*** ***It can readily be seen that order 53 rule 2 (as it then stood) is derived verbatim from S.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.*** ***There is no provision for extension of time to apply for such leave in the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22, Laws of Kenya) which gives some limited right for extension of time to file suits after expiry of a limitation period. But this Act has no relevance here.*** ***It therefore is apparent that the extension of time granted by Platt J. was a nullity. Any steps taken thereafter are therefore of no consequence.”*** 1. It is clear from the above framework and from the prevailing jurisprudence on the issue that a party seeking the judicial review order of *certiorari* under the Law Reform Act, targeting a decision of a quasi-judicial organ established by a statute, is obligated to initiate the judicial review proceedings within six months from the date when the impugned decision is rendered. The judicial review proceedings under the Law Reform Act are initiated when the application for leave is filed. That is the prevailing law. 2. The chamber summons through which the present judicial review proceedings were initiated was dated 8/10/2025 and was filed on 9/10/2025. The ex-parte applicant obtained leave ex-parte. At the time of granting leave, the court did not have the benefit of definitive and conclusive evidence on the precise date when the impugned decision was rendered. There is now definitive and conclusive evidence that the impugned decision was rendered on 23/7/2020. A period of more than five (5) years had lapsed by the time the ex-parte applicant brought the application. Clearly, the judicial review proceedings were initiated outside the prescribed statutory limitation period of six months. The ex-parte applicant having elected to approach the court under Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act as opposed to any other redress mechanism, it was incumbent upon him to ensure compliance with the law. 3. As things stand, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain a **Sections 8** and **9** (*of the Law Reform Act*) judicial review motion outside the statutory period of six months. Not too long ago, the Supreme Court of Kenya in ***Dande & 3 others v Inspector General, National Police Service & 5 others [2023] KESC 40 (KLR)*** explained the various categories of judicial review proceedings and emphasized that when a party elects to move the court for judicial review orders under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules [*Which is the procedural framework upon which jurisdiction under Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act is exercised*], the jurisdiction of the court is limited by the law. The Supreme Court stated thus: ***“…..when a party approaches a court under the provisions of the Constitution then the court ought to carry out a merit review of the case. However, if a party files a suit under the provisions of Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules and does not claim any violation of rights or even violation of the Constitution, then the court can only limit itself to the process and manner in which the decision complained of was reached or action taken and following our decision in SGS Kenya Ltd and not the merits of the decision per se”.*** 1. For the above reasons, the court comes to the finding that the present judicial review motion, which was brought under **Sections 8** and **9** of the **Law Reform Act**, is statute-barred. Put differently, to the extent that the motion was brought under **Sections 8** and **9** of the **Law Reform Act**, it is time-barred and the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it. 2. In line with the principle in ***Owners of Motor Vessel Lillian “S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] eKLR (Civil Appeal 50 of 1989) [1989] KECA 48 (KLR),*** the Court has no option but to down its tools. The Court will not, in the circumstances, venture into the second issue which is a merit question in the motion. 3. The result is that the motion under consideration is hereby struck out for being statute-barred under **Section 9 (3)** of the **Law Reform Act**. In line with the general principle in **Section 27** of the **Civil Procedure Act**, the ex-parte applicant shall bear costs of the suit. **DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2026.** **B M EBOSO [MR]** **ELC JUDGE**