Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutJudicial Review Miscellaneous Application (application dated 10th May, 2017, amended 27th July, 2017; preliminary objection dated 7th May, 2018)· [2019] KEELC 4991 (KLR)

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)

High Court of Kenya (judicial review jurisdiction), Makueni
18 January 2019
2,304 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

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

#
The Interested Parties raised a preliminary objection dated 7th May, 2018 against a judicial review application by the Ex-parte Applicants, who sought to quash a decision of the Deputy County Commissioner made on 4th December, 2015 by a notice of motion dated 10th May, 2017 and amended on 27th July, 2017. The Interested Parties argued the application was statute-barred under Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which bar leave for certiorari sought later than six months after the decision, and that the statutory limitation has no extension mechanism. The Ex-parte Applicants countered that the objection was an afterthought raised after final submissions; that the limitation provision applied only to certiorari and not the mandamus and prohibition prayers; that the application was also anchored on the Constitution, the Fair Administrative Action Act and other statutes; and that unchallenged leave had already been granted, with Article 159(2)(d) requiring justice without undue regard to technicalities. The court held that a preliminary objection may be raised at any stage, and that although Article 23(3) reliefs in a constitutional petition are not subject to limitation, the Applicants had proceeded by miscellaneous application, which offended the six-month limitation. Applying Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lilian S', the court found it lacked jurisdiction, noted that the application had merits, and struck out the application with costs to the Interested Parties on 18th January, 2019.

Key legal issues

#
01

Timeliness of the application for certiorari

Holding

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

Reasoning

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.

p. 3
02

Whether the court could enlarge the limitation period

Holding

No; the statutory limitation under Section 9(3) has no provision for extension of time

Reasoning

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).

p. 2
03

Timing of the preliminary objection

Holding

A preliminary objection may be raised at any stage, so the objection filed after final submissions was properly before the court

Reasoning

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.

p. 3

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. 1.Preliminary objection of the Interested Parties upheld
  2. 2.Ex-parte Applicants' application struck out
  3. 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.