Republic v Ministry of Lands,Housing and Urban Development & 4 others; Jeremiah Otieno Okenye (Interested Party) Exparte Osoro Kennedy Omwoyo [2019] KEELC 4309 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court allowed a land dispute judicial review to proceed, ruling that a prior case involving different parties does not block it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the matter is res judicata given the earlier suit, Kisii ELC Case No. 38 of 2007 (Lawrence Sese & 6 Others v Jeremiah Otieno Okenya & Another)
The matter is not res judicata because the earlier suit was decided in personam, binding only its parties, and the present applicant is a third party who was not a party to the earlier suit.
The court set out the five elements of res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, including that the former suit be between the same parties or their privies. In the ELC case the plaintiffs amended their plaint to sue in their individual capacity only, so the judgment bound them alone. Distinguishing judgments in personam from judgments in rem, the court held that the applicant, not being a party to the earlier suit, is not barred from bringing the present judicial review application.
Whether the judicial review application is time barred under the six-month rule in Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 9 of the Law Reform Act
The application is not time barred; the six-month limitation under Order 53 Rule 2 applies only to formal judgments, orders, decrees, convictions or other proceedings, not to informal decisions such as allocation or alienation of land.
Reviewing the precedent value of the authorities cited, the court noted that Rosaline Tubei and Aga Khan concerned formal decisions of tribunals and ministerial directives, while the authorities relied on by the applicant (Goldenberg, Republic v Commissioner of Lands, and Amica Business Solutions) established that informal land-allocation decisions are not covered by Order 53 Rule 2. The court found no error in the grant of leave and held that Article 47 of the Constitution now frames relief for administrative grievances.
Whether the applicant has established grounds for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
This issue could not be determined at the preliminary objection stage, as it would require evaluating disputed facts and the merits, which lies outside a preliminary objection.
Relying on Oraro v Mbaja, the court held that a preliminary objection must rest on pure points of law on agreed or undisputed facts. Determining whether the applicant has established grounds for judicial review orders would entail receiving arguments, analysing and evaluating evidence and making determinations on the merits, which is the preserve of the substantive hearing. The preliminary objection was therefore unsustainable in that respect.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection must be a pure point of law argued on agreed facts and cannot involve disputed facts or exercise of judicial discretion
- Orders in personam bind only the parties to them and do not affect third parties, hence a suit by a third party is not necessarily res judicata of an earlier suit in personam
- The six-month limitation under Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies to judgments, orders, decrees, convictions or other formal proceedings, not to informal decisions such as land allocations
- Judicial review relief for administrative grievances is now a constitutional discipline measured against Article 47 of the Constitution
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection is unsustainable and is rejected
- 2.The costs occasioned by the preliminary objection will abide the outcome of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act (Cap 26); Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Ministry of Lands,Housing and Urban Development & 4 others; Jeremiah Otieno Okenye (Interested Party) Exparte Osoro Kennedy Omwoyo [2019] KEELC 4309 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment (ex parte judicial review application, High Court at Kisii). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4309/eng@2019-03-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.