Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedJudicial Review Application (Notice of Motion filed 16th November 2016)· [2017] KEELC 469 (KLR)

Republic v Land Registrar Trans-Nzoia County & another Ex-parte Turbo Munyaka Co-operative Society Ltd & 4 others [2017] KEELC 469 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
20 December 2017
5,111 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~20 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court cannot review its own judicial review orders in Kenya — if you missed a mandamus case, your only remedy is appealing to the Court of Appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Intended Interested Parties (Joseph Mbugua Hosea and 3 others) filed a Chamber Summons dated 20th March 2017 seeking to be enjoined as interested parties and seeking review/setting aside of the judgment of 17th March 2017 in which the court granted an order of mandamus compelling the Land Registrar, Trans-Nzoia to register and release 31 leases to the Ex-Parte Applicant, Turbo Munyaka Co-operative Society Limited. The Ex-Parte Applicant filed a Preliminary Objection dated 7th July 2017 contending that the court had become functus officio, that orders under Section 8(3) and (5) of the Law Reform Act are final and only amenable to appeal, that the Civil Procedure Act provisions invoked by the applicants do not apply to judicial review, and that parties cannot be enjoined in a finally determined suit. The applicants countered that they were not served with the judicial review proceedings, that a person misrepresented himself as chairman of a defunct society, and that the court retains inherent power to review orders obtained in breach of natural justice. Relying principally on the Court of Appeal decision in Biren Amritlal Shah v Republic, the court held that there is no room for review of a prerogative order; the remedy is an appeal to the Court of Appeal. It accepted that the affected parties may not have been served as Order 53 Rule 3(2) requires, but held non-service is a ground of appeal, not a basis for review. The court further found the underlying disputes over plot ownership and society chairmanship belong to the Co-operative Societies Tribunal under Sections 76 and 77 of the Co-operative Societies Act, and that judicial review is ill-equipped to resolve them. The Preliminary Objection was upheld and the Chamber Summons application struck out. No costs order appears in the judgment.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review its own Order of Mandamus in judicial review

Holding

It does not; such an order is final and only amenable to appeal to the Court of Appeal under Section 8(3) and (5) of the Law Reform Act

Reasoning

Relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Biren Amritlal Shah, the court held that there is no provision for review by the Superior Court of its own decisions in judicial review once rendered; Section 8(5) confers a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal, leaving no room for review. The court acknowledged that decisions of concurrent courts (Majanja J and Korir J) supporting inherent jurisdiction were only persuasive and declined to follow them.

p. 7
02

Whether the non-service of the affected parties on the mandamus application altered the position

Holding

No; non-service is a ground of appeal to the Court of Appeal, not a basis for review by the High Court

Reasoning

Although the court observed that the intended interested parties were adversely affected and had not been served as required by Order 53 Rule 3(2), it held that even the gravity of the consequences could not change the absence of jurisdiction; non-service forms part of the grounds of appeal the applicants may raise before the Court of Appeal, which may issue the necessary orders.

p. 9
03

Whether the court could determine ownership of plots and the disputed chairmanship

Holding

No; those are internal co-operative society disputes for the Co-operative Societies Tribunal under Sections 76 and 77 of the Co-operative Societies Act

Reasoning

The court found the applicants and the ex-parte applicant were locked in internal society disputes regarding membership, chairmanship and plot ownership. Such disputes must be referred to the Co-operative Societies Tribunal, and the court in judicial review, given its restrictive parameters, could not enquire into the merits of the claims to the parcels of land.

p. 8
04

Whether the Civil Procedure Act and Rules apply to judicial review proceedings

Holding

The applicants' invocation of Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 45 was challenged as inapplicable, the court exercising a sui generis jurisdiction under Order 53

Reasoning

The ex-parte applicant submitted, relying on Welamondi and Republic v C Lutta Kasamani, that apart from Order 53 no provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and Rules apply to judicial review proceedings. The court's ultimate decision rested on the finality of orders under Section 8 of the Law Reform Act rather than on a definitive ruling on this ground.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • In exercising its special jurisdiction under the Law Reform Act, the High Court has no jurisdiction to review its previous judicial review order; the aggrieved party's remedy is an appeal to the Court of Appeal
  • The court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Societies Tribunal to determine internal disputes among members of a co-operative society over ownership of plots
  • The High Court in judicial review exercises a sui generis jurisdiction and the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules other than Order 53 are not applicable

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 7th July 2017 is upheld
  2. 2.The applicant's (Intended Interested Parties') application dated 10/3/2017 (Chamber Summons dated 20th March 2017) is struck out
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 8 of the Law Reform Act (Cap 26) and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Land Registrar Trans-Nzoia County & another Ex-parte Turbo Munyaka Co-operative Society Ltd & 4 others [2017] KEELC 469 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Judicial Review Application (Notice of Motion filed 16th November 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/469/eng@2017-12-20

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.