Republic v Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kiambu & 3 others Ex Parte; Tatu City Limited & another [2020] KEELC 2000 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court quashed a magistrate's orders in a Tatu City planning dispute, confirming magistrates cannot decide planning permission matters reserved for higher appeal channels.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Chief Magistrate acted in excess of jurisdiction in Kiambu CMCC No. 561 of 2017
The Magistrate acted in excess of jurisdiction by hearing a planning-permission dispute which, under sections 14 and 15 of the Physical Planning Act, falls for appeal to the Liaison Committee, National Liaison Committee and then the High Court
The application in the lower court was brought under sections 29 and 30 of the Physical Planning Act. The Act prescribes a tiered appeal process ending in the High Court. Since the 1st Respondent is not a High Court, issuing orders over planning permissions exceeded its jurisdiction, warranting certiorari.
Whether prohibition and injunction could issue against private individuals
Prohibition was refused as judicial review remedies are only available against public bodies
Applying Kenya National Examination Council v Republic ex parte Gathenji, the court held that certiorari and prohibition are remedies directed at public bodies. The 2nd to 4th Respondents are private persons, so no prohibition order could issue against them; the court is also concerned with process, not abuse allegations.
Costs
Costs awarded to the Ex parte Applicants against the 1st Respondent only
Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act gives the court discretion; costs follow the event. Having partially succeeded, the Applicants obtained costs only against the 1st Respondent, against whom certiorari issued.
Legal principles established
#- A subordinate court lacks jurisdiction to entertain or issue orders in respect of planning permission disputes where the Physical Planning Act provides an appeal mechanism culminating in the High Court
- Judicial review remedies (certiorari and prohibition) are available only against public bodies, not private persons
Court orders
#- 1.Order of certiorari to bring into this Court and quash the orders issued by the 1st Respondent on 31st October 2017 in Kiambu Chief Magistrate's Court Civil Case No. 561 of 2017 (prayer 1)
- 2.Order of prohibition restraining the 1st Respondent from conducting or taking any further steps in Kiambu Chief Magistrate's Court Civil Case No. 561 of 2017 (prayer 2)
- 3.Striking out/termination/discharge of the proceedings in Kiambu Chief Magistrate's Court Civil Case No. 561 of 2017 (prayer 5)
- 4.Costs of the proceedings awarded to the Ex parte Applicants as against the 1st Respondent only
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court/Environment and Land Court (orders of certiorari and prohibition)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kiambu & 3 others Ex Parte; Tatu City Limited & another [2020] KEELC 2000 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Judicial Review Application, Notice of Motion dated 10th May 2018 (Thika ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2000/eng@2020-06-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.