Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedChuka ELC Miscellaneous Application Case No. 14 of 2017 (Formerly Embu ELC 44 of 2014)· [2019] KEELC 5006 (KLR)

Elias Micheni Mugo v Land Adjudication Officer Meru South District; Fredrick Mati & another (Interested Parties) [2019] KEELC 5006 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
15 January 2019
PNP. M. Njoroge
1,279 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

#

Once a Kenyan court delivers judgment in a judicial review case, it cannot grant new orders like injunctions; your only option is to appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, Elias Micheni Mugo, moved the Environment and Land Court at Chuka by a Notice of Motion dated 10th January 2019, invoking Sections 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Orders 40 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking temporary injunctions restraining the respondent, the Land Adjudication Officer Meru South District, from selling, alienating, cultivating or otherwise interfering with parcels Karingani/Mariani/6666-6667 measuring approximately 0.92 HA. The application was supported by an affidavit of Gilbert Gotham deponing that the applicant was the registered owner and in long occupation, and that the respondent had previously sought, unsuccessfully, to quash a decision of the adjudication officer in Objection No. 640 Mariani Adjudication Section. The court noted that the underlying judicial review application for certiorari had been filed on 4th July 2006 and determined by judgment on 27th June 2018, and that the present application was lodged over six months later with no appeal lodged and no explanation for the failure to appeal. The court held that judicial review proceedings are fully determined once judgment allows or dismisses the application, whereupon the court becomes functus officio and cannot entertain additional remedies; the proper course for a dissatisfied litigant is an appeal under section 8(5) of the Law Reform Act. Sections 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rules 1 and 2 were held inapplicable to a concluded matter. The application was summarily dismissed with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Availability of interlocutory relief after final judgment

Holding

Interlocutory orders are not tenable in a concluded case; the court became functus officio upon delivering judgment

Reasoning

Judicial review proceedings concern the integrity of the decision-making process and are fully determined once judgment allows or dismisses the application. Thereafter the court cannot exercise its inherent jurisdiction or grant injunctions, since there are no pending interlocutory stages and no ends of justice left to promote.

p. 2
02

Proper avenue for a dissatisfied litigant

Holding

The remedy is appeal, not a fresh application for additional remedies

Reasoning

The applicant was represented when judgment was delivered and gave no explanation for failing to appeal. Section 8(5) of the Law Reform Act provides that any person aggrieved by an order under the judicial review provisions may appeal to the Court of Appeal.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Once a judicial review judgment allows or dismisses the application, the court becomes functus officio and cannot grant additional remedies; dissatisfied litigants must appeal.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application is summarily dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 63(e)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rules 1 and 2
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1
  • Law Reform ActSection 8(5)
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Orders 40 Rules 1 and 2 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Elias Micheni Mugo v Land Adjudication Officer Meru South District; Fredrick Mati & another (Interested Parties) [2019] KEELC 5006 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Chuka ELC Miscellaneous Application Case No. 14 of 2017 (Formerly Embu ELC 44 of 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/5006/eng@2019-01-15

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