Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedE.L.C. JR No. 32 of 2015 (Formerly Kerugoya ELC JR No. 3 of 2013)· [2019] KEELC 4922 (KLR)

Republic v Minister for Lands and Settlement & 3 others Ex Parte Kahareri Buri Karugu [2019] KEELC 4922 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
17 January 2019
YAY.M. Angima
1,347 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court quashed two land appeal decisions because they were filed 15 and 17 years past the legal 60-day deadline.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The ex-parte Applicant sought an order of certiorari to quash the decisions of the Minister for Lands and Settlement and the District Commissioner, Mbeere North, in Minister's Appeal Case Nos. 206/99 and 228/04, Kirima Adjudication Section, dated 20th December 2012, contending that the appeals had been filed 15 and 17 years after the Land Adjudication Officer's decision of 25th October 1989, far outside the 60-day period prescribed by section 29 of the Land Adjudication Act, and that the decisions rested on inconsistent evidence. The 1st and 2nd Respondents, through the Attorney General, conceded that their decisions were ultra vires as the right of appeal had abated. The 3rd Respondent opposed through submissions, blaming the appellant in the appeal for the delay, while the 4th Respondent claimed he had paid the appeal fees in 1989, producing a payment certificate. The court, applying Municipal Council of Mombasa v Umoja Consultants Ltd, declined to examine the merits ground, holding judicial review concerned with process not merits. It found the 4th Respondent's certificate unreliable, since it predated the LAO's decision and identified no parcel, objection or appeal number. The court held both appeals were filed out of time and entertained in contravention of section 29 of the Land Adjudication Act, a violation amenable to judicial review. The notice of motion dated 3rd October 2012 was allowed in terms of prayer (1), quashing the impugned decisions, with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Minister's appeals were filed out of time under section 29 of the Land Adjudication Act

Holding

The appeals filed in 1999 and 2004 against a decision of 25th October 1989 were filed out of the 60-day statutory period, and the 1st and 2nd Respondents had no jurisdiction to entertain them

Reasoning

The LAO's decision was made on 25th October 1989, while the appeals were filed 15 and 17 years later. The 4th Respondent's certificate of payment was unconvincing: it predated the decision and did not cite the parcel, objection or appeal number. The 1st and 2nd Respondents conceded the appeals were ultra vires as the right of appeal had abated.

p. 2
02

Whether the court could examine the alleged reliance on inconsistent evidence

Holding

No - that ground goes to the merits of the decision and is outside the scope of judicial review

Reasoning

Relying on Municipal Council of Mombasa v Umoja Consultants Ltd, the court held that judicial review concerns the decision-making process, not the merits. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the decision is a matter for a court of appeal over the decider, which the court in judicial review cannot be.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision
  • Entertaining an appeal filed out of the statutorily prescribed period is a violation amenable to judicial review

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of certiorari to quash the proceedings and decision of the Minister and/or District Commissioner - Mbeere North in Appeal Case Nos. 206/99 and 228/04 Kirima Adjudication Section dated 20th December 2012
  2. 2.Each party to bear his own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 53 Rule 3
  • Law Reform Act (Cap 26)Sections 8 and 9
  • Land Adjudication ActSection 29

Cases cited (1)

  • Municipal Council of Mombasa Vs Umoja Consultants Ltd
    Civil Appeal No. 185 of 2001
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act (Cap 26) and Order 53 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Minister for Lands and Settlement & 3 others Ex Parte Kahareri Buri Karugu [2019] KEELC 4922 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). E.L.C. JR No. 32 of 2015 (Formerly Kerugoya ELC JR No. 3 of 2013). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4922/eng@2019-01-17

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