Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedJudicial Review application dated 23rd October 2019· [2020] KEELC 1233 (KLR)

Nancy Wangari Kimani v County Executive Member – Lands, Housing, Physical Planning and Urbanization & County Government of Nyeri (? 4 of 2019) [2020] KEELC 1233 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 September 2020
2,451 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioner applied by Notice of Motion dated 23rd October 2019 for orders of certiorari to quash the 1st Respondent's letter suspending her approved development plan on plot Nyeri/Municipality/Block 1/1404, an order of prohibition against interference with her project, declarations that the suspension was unconstitutional, null and void and that her title was conclusive evidence of ownership, plus costs. She contended that the Respondents, having approved the development on 30th May 2019, had no jurisdiction, mandate or power to suspend it on the pretext of an unknown ownership dispute, and that their action breached Articles 19, 22, 23, 24, 40, 47 and 50 of the Constitution and the rules of natural justice. The Respondents opposed, arguing the application was premature before their final verdict and that the Petitioner had not exhausted dispute mechanisms under the Physical Planning Act. The court, hearing the motion at an interlocutory stage, asked whether a prima facie case had been established. It found the application offended Order 53 rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules because no leave for judicial review had been sought. It further held that the Petitioner should have referred the ownership dispute to the National Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee under Section 32(4) and (5) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act before approaching the court, judicial review being available only exceptionally where a statutory appeal procedure exists. The court also noted that some prayers were final orders reserved for trial. The application was dismissed with costs following the event.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leave under Order 53 was required before seeking certiorari and prohibition

Holding

Yes; failure to obtain leave offended Order 53 Rule 1 and the ground must fail

Reasoning

The court examined Order 53 rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which require that no application for mandamus, prohibition or certiorari be made unless leave has been granted ex parte. The Petitioner sought certiorari and prohibition without leave, contravening the statute. The court held that procedure laid down in a statute must be properly observed and that courts will not shy away from ensuring the law is followed.

p. 3
02

Whether the Petitioner was required to exhaust statutory remedies under the Physical and Land Use Planning Act

Holding

Yes; she ought to have referred the dispute to the National Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee first

Reasoning

The impugned letter temporarily suspending the development approval raised an ownership/planning dispute. Section 32(4) and (5) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act provides an appeal path to the Liaison Committee and then to the Environment and Land Court. Following Republic v NEMA, judicial review lies only exceptionally where a statutory appeal procedure exists; the Petitioner should have exhausted that mechanism before coming to court.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Applications for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus require prior leave of the Court under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules
  • Where Parliament has provided a statutory appeal procedure, judicial review will be granted only in exceptional circumstances

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the Petitioner's Notice of Motion dated 23rd October 2019
  2. 2.Costs to follow the event

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 19, 22, 23, 24, 40, 47, 50
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 53 rules 1, 2 and 3
  • Physical Planning ActSection 33(3), (4) & (5)
  • Physical and Land Use Planning ActSection 32(4) and (5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Kuria Green Limited vs. Registrar of Titles & Another
    [2010] eKLR
  • Mrao vs First American Bank of Kenya Limited & 2 Others
    (2003) KLR 125
  • Republic vs. National Environmental Management Authority
    [2011] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 47, 50 and 40 of the Constitution; judicial review jurisdiction over suspension of development approval under the Physical and Land Use Planning Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nancy Wangari Kimani v County Executive Member – Lands, Housing, Physical Planning and Urbanization & County Government of Nyeri (? 4 of 2019) [2020] KEELC 1233 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Judicial Review application dated 23rd October 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1233/eng@2020-09-30

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