Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedJudicial Review Application (Chamber Summons dated 9th December 2015)· [2017] KEELC 3609 (KLR)

Benedict Maina Warutere v Mary Wambere Ngetha & another [2017] KEELC 3609 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
16 January 2017
1,452 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court in Nyeri dismissed an attempt to overturn a 2007 land tribunal decision, confirming that judicial review deadlines are strict and repealing a law does not erase existing cases.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The ex parte applicant, Benedict Maina Warutere, sought leave by chamber summons dated 9th December 2015 to apply for judicial review orders of certiorari to quash the proceedings and decision in Lamuria Land Disputes Tribunal Case No. 13 of 2007 and Nanyuki SPM Case No. 40 of 2007, and an order of prohibition against the Senior Principal Magistrate, Nanyuki, together with an order that leave operate as a stay. The Tribunal had found in favour of the respondent and ordered cancellation of the applicant's title over Laikipia Ngobit/Muhonia Block 1/21; the award was adopted as a judgment of the magistrates' court with a decree delivered on 21st November 2007. The applicant's pending appeal to the Provincial Appeals Committee was overtaken by the repeal of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act, which he contended rendered the proceedings and appeal null and void. The respondent opposed the application as frivolous, vexatious, time barred and an abuse of process. Waithaka J identified two issues: whether leave could be granted to quash a non-existent award, and time bar. Certiorari was time barred, the decision having been made on or before 21st November 2007, beyond the six-month period. Prohibition was refused for want of explanation for a delay of more than eight years. Applying the Court of Appeal decision in Chege Macharia v. Francis Kimani Kirimira and Section 23(3) of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act, the court held that repeal did not extinguish existing proceedings or remedies. The chamber summons was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether certiorari lies to quash an award already adopted as a judgment of the court

Holding

Once the Tribunal's award was adopted as a judgment of the court, certiorari to quash a non-existent award could not issue; leave could not be granted

Reasoning

The court found the facts uncontroverted: the Tribunal's award cancelling the applicant's title had been adopted as a judgment of the magistrates' court, with a decree delivered on 21st November 2007. With the award no longer existing independently, there was nothing left for certiorari to remove and quash, rendering the intended judicial review application futile.

p. 3
02

Time bar against the application for certiorari

Holding

The application for certiorari was time barred, the decision sought to be quashed having been made on 21st November 2007 or before, more than six months before the application

Reasoning

The court held that an application for certiorari must be brought within six months of the decision sought to be quashed. On the uncontroverted facts, the decision was made on or before 21st November 2007, and the application was filed on 9th/17th December 2015, well outside the statutory period, so the order of certiorari could not be pursued.

p. 3
03

Effect of repeal of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act on pending proceedings and appeals

Holding

The repeal did not render the Tribunal proceedings, the decree, or the pending appeal useless and untenable; remedies survive repeal under Section 23(3) of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act

Reasoning

The court rejected the applicant's premise, relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Chege Macharia v. Francis Kimani Kirimira, which held that awards properly forwarded but unread at repeal should be adopted as judgments with appeals lying to the High Court. Section 23(3) of Cap 2 preserves investigations, legal proceedings and remedies notwithstanding repeal, so the applicant's grounds were legally mistaken.

p. 3
04

Undue delay in the application for prohibition

Holding

The application for prohibition, brought more than eight years after the decision whose execution was to be prohibited and with no explanation for the delay, failed

Reasoning

While prohibition is not subject to a statutory time limit, the law requires that it be sought without undue delay. The court found the leave application was brought over eight years after the decision and execution sought to be prohibited, and the applicant offered no explanation for the inordinate delay, so the discretionary relief was refused.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Repeal of a written law does not affect legal proceedings or remedies in respect of rights and obligations existing before the repeal, per Section 23(3) of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act, Cap 2
  • An application for certiorari must be brought within six months of the decision sought to be quashed
  • Although there is no statutory time frame for an order of prohibition, the application must be made without undue delay

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for chamber summons dated 9th December 2015 is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Disputes Tribunals Act
  • Interpretation and General Provisions Act, Cap 2Section 23(3)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159

Cases cited (1)

  • Chege Macharia v. Francis Kimani Kirimira
    (2015) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court (orders of certiorari and prohibition)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Benedict Maina Warutere v Mary Wambere Ngetha & another [2017] KEELC 3609 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Judicial Review Application (Chamber Summons dated 9th December 2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/3609/eng@2017-01-16

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