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 (Notice of Motion dated 7th November 2018)· [2020] KEELC 2801 (KLR)

Republic v District Land Registrar, Nyamira Exparte Joseph Oyieko Obaga; Christopher Nyangau Obaga & another (Interested Parties) [2020] KEELC 2801 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
23 April 2020
1,313 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

#

The High Court dismissed a landowner's challenge to revoked titles because it was filed more than two years late, well past the six-month deadline.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a Notice of Motion dated 7th November 2018 under Order 53 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Joseph Oyieko Obaga sought certiorari to quash a decision of the Senior Land Registrar, Nyamira County revoking titles Nos. 3187 and 3188 issued to him and Clement Obaga Moseti following sub-division of parcel No. 564 Central Kitutu/Bogetaorio, mandamus compelling the Registrar to reverse the revocation, and a declaration that the decision was invalid, ultra vires and void. He deponed that the titles were cancelled on 1st July 2016 without any hearing, and that he learnt of the cancellation only on 14th August 2018. The interested party, Zacchaeus Michieka Obaga, opposed the application, deponing that the property was registered in the name of Clement Obaga Moseti, who died on 17th July 2017, and that the application was an attempt to intermeddle in his estate contrary to section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. The interested party further contended that the application was fatally defective, having been filed more than six months after the impugned decision, contrary to Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 9(2) of the Law Reform Act, and cited two authorities on the point. The court framed three issues: competency, the succession point, and entitlement to the orders sought. It held that the decision having been made over two years before leave was sought, the application was out of time and incompetent, and that leave previously granted could be challenged at the substantive hearing. Obiter, it noted the applicant appeared to be intermeddling with a deceased person's estate. The court found no merit in the application, dismissed it, and awarded costs to the interested parties.

Key legal issues

#
01

Time limitation for applications for certiorari

Holding

The application was filed more than six months after the Registrar's decision of 8th February 2016 and, leave notwithstanding, was out of time and incompetent.

Reasoning

Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 9(2) of the Law Reform Act require that an application for certiorari be made not later than six months after the impugned decision. The decision under challenge was made in February 2016 while the motion was filed in November 2018, over two years later, without extension of time. Relying on the authorities cited by the interested party, the court held the delay was fatal and granted leave could be questioned at the substantive stage.

p. 2
02

Whether the suit offends section 45 of the Law of Succession Act

Holding

The court found it unnecessary to determine this issue definitively but noted the ex-parte Applicant appeared to be intermeddling with the estate of the deceased registered proprietor.

Reasoning

The interested party argued that the suit property was registered in the name of Clement Obaga Moseti, deceased, father of both the applicant and the interested party, and that no grant of representation had been obtained. Challenging the revocation of title to estate property without a grant amounted to intermeddling contrary to section 45 of the Law of Succession Act, depriving the applicant of locus.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for judicial review must be filed within six months of the decision challenged, and an application filed out of time without leave is incompetent and may be challenged at the substantive hearing.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The judicial review application is dismissed with costs to the interested parties.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 53 Rule 2
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 53 Rule 3
  • Law Reform Act, Cap 26 Laws of KenyaSection 9(2)
  • Law of Succession ActSection 45

Cases cited (2)

  • Republic v Attorney General, Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Agriculture and Another
    (2018) eKLR
  • Rosaline Tubei & 8 Others v Patrick Cheruiyot & 3 others
    (2014) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 53 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court under the Law Reform Act)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v District Land Registrar, Nyamira Exparte Joseph Oyieko Obaga; Christopher Nyangau Obaga & another (Interested Parties) [2020] KEELC 2801 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Judicial Review (Notice of Motion dated 7th November 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2801/eng@2020-04-23

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