Republic v Deputy County Commissioner Makindu Sub-County, Makueni County ; Dismus Kasio Siva & 7 others (Interested Parties) Ex-Parte Joel Mutuku Musango & 3 others [2019] KEELC 4991 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court struck out a late judicial review case, confirming a strict six-month deadline for quashing government decisions through judicial review applications.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Timeliness of the application for certiorari
The application was statute-barred as it was not brought within six months of the decision of the Deputy County Commissioner made on 4th December, 2015, the application having been filed on 10th May, 2017
Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules bar the grant of leave for certiorari where the application is made later than six months after the judgment, order or proceeding sought to be quashed. The Fair Administrative Action Act, relied on by the Applicants, prescribes no limitation period, but because the Applicants proceeded by miscellaneous application rather than a constitutional petition, the statutory limitation applied and the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Whether the court could enlarge the limitation period
No; the statutory limitation under Section 9(3) has no provision for extension of time
The Interested Parties submitted that Section 9(3) is a statutory provision without any extension mechanism and that rules made under a statute cannot override a statutory provision. The court accepted that the Applicants could not cure the time bar by the enlargement-of-time prayer included in their leave application, and that jurisdiction could not be conferred by the parties or by reliance on Article 159(2)(d).
Timing of the preliminary objection
A preliminary objection may be raised at any stage, so the objection filed after final submissions was properly before the court
The Ex-parte Applicants argued the objection was an afterthought since it was raised after final submissions were filed. The court held that a preliminary objection can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and was therefore properly before it. The court also declined to consider an authority whose citation was incomplete, ignoring it for that reason.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection can be raised at any stage of the proceedings
- A court without jurisdiction must down its tools immediately, however meritorious the application may appear
- The six-month limitation in Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act applies to judicial review applications brought by miscellaneous application, even though reliefs under Article 23(3) in a constitutional petition are not subject to limitation
Court orders
#- 1.Preliminary objection of the Interested Parties upheld
- 2.Ex-parte Applicants' application struck out
- 3.Costs of the application awarded to the Interested Parties
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and the Law Reform Act (Cap 26); Applicants also invoked Article 23(3)(f) and 47(1) of the Constitution, the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015 and the Land Adjudication Act (Cap 284)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Deputy County Commissioner Makindu Sub-County, Makueni County ; Dismus Kasio Siva & 7 others (Interested Parties) Ex-Parte Joel Mutuku Musango & 3 others [2019] KEELC 4991 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application (application dated 10th May, 2017, amended 27th July, 2017; preliminary objection dated 7th May, 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4991/eng@2019-01-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.