Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment text· [2019] KEELC 338 (KLR)

Samuel Gaichu Rinjeu v Attorney General & another;Mitambo Mangara(Interested Party) [2019] KEELC 338 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
9 December 2019
PNP. M. Njoroge
939 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court in Chuka dismissed a request to file a judicial review case late, confirming Kenya's strict six-month deadline for quashing decisions.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, Celestine Mwenda Munene, moved the court by ex parte originating summons under Order 37 rule 6 and section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act seeking leave to commence judicial review proceedings against the Minister out of the stipulated time, together with costs. The challenge concerned a land dispute in which the applicant, holding a power of attorney for his father Samuel Gaichu Rinjeu, alleged that the Minister ignored objections, overlooked a 1983 decision by a District Officer in the family's favour, and failed to address the irregular creation of parcel No. 2298 out of parcel No. 396. The court found that nowhere in the application or supporting affidavit did the applicant explain why judicial review proceedings could not be filed in time, rendering the application devoid of merit. The court further held that Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which bars leave for certiorari more than six months after the impugned proceeding, uses the mandatory word 'shall', casting doubt on the court's power to enlarge time. The application was accordingly dismissed on 9th December 2019. No costs order is recorded in the judgment, and the applicant was not present at delivery of the ruling at Chuka.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court could grant leave to file judicial review proceedings out of time

Holding

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to explain the delay and Order 53 Rule 2 mandatorily bars leave for certiorari after six months

Reasoning

The court noted that although the application sought enlargement of time, neither the notice of motion nor the supporting affidavit explained why judicial review proceedings were not filed in time. It further held that the word 'shall' in Order 53 Rule 2 makes the six-month limit mandatory, rendering it doubtful that the court had power to extend time. On both grounds the application lacked merit and was dismissed.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The six-month period in Order 53 Rule 2 for applying for leave to seek certiorari is mandatory and the court has no power to enlarge time beyond it

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application is dismissed

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Actsection 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 37 rule 6
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 53 rule 2
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules; section 3A and Order 37 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Samuel Gaichu Rinjeu v Attorney General & another;Mitambo Mangara(Interested Party) [2019] KEELC 338 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment text. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/338/eng@2019-12-09

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