Republic v Attorney General & 7 others Ex-parte Konza Ranching and Farming Co-operative Society Limited [2018] KEELC 2136 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court struck out a judicial review challenge to the degazettement of the Konza Techno City buffer zone because the applicant skipped a statutory appeal process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the judicial review application in the first instance
The Court had no jurisdiction because the Ex-parte Applicant bypassed the appeal mechanism under Sections 13 and 15 of the Physical Planning Act, which provides for appeals from the Director of Physical Planning to the liaison committees and thence to the National Physical Planning Liaison Committee, with a further right under Section 15(4) to appeal to the High Court sitting as an appellate court.
The Physical Planning Act establishes a clear, specific dispute-resolution mechanism for grievances against decisions of the Director of Physical Planning concerning physical development plans. The Applicant never approached the liaison committees. Relying on the Speaker of the National Assembly v Karume principle, where a clear procedure is prescribed by statute it must be strictly followed. The Applicant would still have had access to the High Court on appeal under Section 15(4), so the statutory route did not deny justice.
Whether the application was time-barred under Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules
The application, filed on 19th June 2014 challenging the decision of 28th February 2014 lifting the moratorium, was within the six-month period; the time-bar objection failed.
Order 53 Rule 2 bars leave for certiorari unless the application is made within six months of the proceedings sought to be quashed. The Applicant challenged the degazettement decision of 28th February 2014 and filed on 19th June 2014, well within six months. It would have been premature to move the Court before the moratorium was lifted. The Interested Party's reliance on earlier decisions of 2012 and December 2013 was misplaced as those were not the decisions under review.
Legal principles established
#- Where a clear procedure for redress of a grievance is prescribed by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure must be strictly followed before resorting to the High Court
- A court must down its tools the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction
Court orders
#- 1.The application for judicial review is struck out
- 2.Costs awarded to the Respondents and the Interested Party
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction under the Law Reform Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules; challenged on the basis of Sections 13 and 15(4) of the Physical Planning Act, Cap 286
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Attorney General & 7 others Ex-parte Konza Ranching and Farming Co-operative Society Limited [2018] KEELC 2136 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Judicial Review Application (Notice of Motion dated 19th June, 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/2136/eng@2018-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.