Republic v District Land Disputes Tribunal, Central Division Kirinyaga & 2 others Exparte Grace Gachui Kathei [2017] KEELC 2584 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A landowner lost her bid to quash a Tribunal award because she filed her judicial review case nearly a year late, missing Kenya's strict six-month deadline.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the certiorari application was filed within the statutory limitation period
The application was filed out of time, one year after the Tribunal's award, in contravention of Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act
The Tribunal's award was made on 26th January 2005 and leave to apply for certiorari should have been sought by 25th July 2005. Leave was only granted on 23rd November 2006 and the substantive motion filed on 14th December 2006, well beyond the six-month limit prescribed by both Order 53 Rule 2 and Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act.
Whether the extension of time granted by Khaminwa J. could cure the delay
The extension was incompetent because the Law Reform Act makes no provision for enlarging the six-month period for seeking leave
Relying on the Court of Appeal decisions in Osolo v John Ochola and Ako v Special District Commissioner Kisumu, the court held that while time limits under the Civil Procedure Rules can be extended, statutory time limits cannot. The leave granted ex parte in breach of the law could also be set aside by the court of its own motion on application.
The Tribunal's jurisdiction over registered land
The court acknowledged that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to award a portion of the Applicant's registered land, but this could not cure the fatal delay
The court accepted that the Applicant's grievances were genuine since the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make an award over registered land. Nevertheless, the binding precedent on limitation meant the incompetence of the application prevailed over the substantive merit of the grievance.
Legal principles established
#- The six-month period within which to apply for leave to apply for an order of certiorari cannot be extended, unlike the 21-day period for filing the substantive application after leave is granted
- There is an absolute prohibition against bringing an application for certiorari after the expiry of the six months stipulated by law
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 7th December 2006 and filed on 14th December 2006 was struck out
- 2.Costs of the application to the 3rd Respondent
- On appeal from
- null
- null
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction under the Law Reform Act (Cap 26) and Order LIII of the Civil Procedure Rules, the matter having been transferred to the Environment and Land Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v District Land Disputes Tribunal, Central Division Kirinyaga & 2 others Exparte Grace Gachui Kathei [2017] KEELC 2584 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Notice of Motion dated 7th December 2006, filed 14th December 2006 (Judicial Review). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/2584/eng@2017-05-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.