[2010] KEHC 840 (KLR)
The court held that although leave to apply for judicial review was granted and was to operate as a stay, the applicant failed to file the substantive motion within the 21 days prescribed by Order 53 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. As a result, the leave and stay orders automatically lapsed, and there was no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 840 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Veronicah Waiyai Wanjie; Respondent: Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kiambu; Respondent: Kiambu Land Disputes Tribunal; Interested Party: Stephen Ngigi Waiyai
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 176 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
- Outcome
- application allowed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Certiorari, Prohibition Orders, Land Disputes Tribunal Jurisdiction
- 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
Veronicah Waiyai Wanjie
Applicant
Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kiambu
Respondent
Kiambu Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
Stephen Ngigi Waiyai
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Land Disputes Tribunal and Principal Magistrate's Court had jurisdiction to determine issues relating to title to land parcel Ndumberi/Ndumberi/2762.
- 2 Whether the applicant complied with the procedural requirements for filing a substantive motion for judicial review within the prescribed time.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that although leave to apply for judicial review was granted and was to operate as a stay, the applicant failed to file the substantive motion within the 21 days prescribed by Order 53 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. As a result, the leave and stay orders automatically lapsed, and there was no valid application before the court to challenge the decisions of the respondents. The court therefore found that there was no basis to grant any further orders against the respondents regarding the land title in question.
Court Disposition
application allowed with costs
Orders
- The application is allowed with costs to the respondents.
- There is no order of the court against the decisions of the respondents regarding the title to land parcel Ndumberi/Ndumberi/2762.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 176 OF 2007
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR ORDERS OF PROHIBITION AND CETIORARI BY
REPUBLICAGAINSTLAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL KIAMBU AWARD IN CASE LDT/6/20/3/2006
AND
IN THE LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL ACT NO. 8 OF 1990
BETWEEN
VERONICAH WAIYAI WANJIE ……………....................…………….APPLICANT
V E R S U S
PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE’S COURTAT KIAMBU..................1ST RESPONDENT
KIAMBU LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL.....................................2ND RESPONDENT
AND
STEPHEN NGIGI WAIYAI.........................................................INTERESTED PARTY
R U L I N G
On 1st March, 2007 the Applicant filed a chamber application under Order 53 rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for leave to apply for an order of certiorari to move to the court and quash the proceedings, decision and award of the 1st Respondent dated 21st March, 2006 in case No. LDT/6/20/3/06 and an order prohibiting the 2nd Respondent from entertaining, conducting or proceeding with land case No. 4 of 2006. The complaint by the Applicant was basically that the 1st Defendant had, without jurisdiction, heard and determined an issue relating to tile in respect of land parcel No. Ndumberi/Ndumberi/2762. Justice Emukule granted leave and ordered that the leave operates as a stay. He further ordered that if the substantive motion is not filed within the time prescribed by law, the leave granted would automatically lapse.
Under Order 53 rule 3(1), the substantive application ought to have been filed within 21 days. There is no dispute no such application has since been filed. The leave granted and the order for stay lapsed after the 21 days. There is therefore no order of the court against the decisions of the Respondents regarding the title above.
The application is consequently allowed with costs.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBITHIS 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2010
A.O. MUCHELULE
J U D G E