Republic v Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement & 3 others; Nchiru Catholic Church and Parish through the Diocese of Meru (Catholic) Registered Ex parte Domiciano M Ratanya [2020] KEELC 3532 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court ruled it cannot review its own judicial review orders; the only remedy is an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court has jurisdiction to review its own judgment/orders in a judicial review matter
It does not. Judicial review jurisdiction is a strait jacket; a judge is dispossessed of inherent jurisdiction and the aggrieved party's remedy is an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Guided by the Court of Appeal decision in Ransa Company Ltd v Manca Francesco, the court held that judicial review jurisdiction under sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 is sui generis and does not permit invocation of inherent jurisdiction to review. The issues raised by the applicant were beyond mistakes correctable under residual inherent power (as recognised in Nakumatt Holdings Ltd v Commissioner of VAT). The application failed for want of jurisdiction.
Whether the judgment of 14th June 2018 was a mistrial or nullity for want of notice and breach of Order 21 Rule 1
Not determined, as the court found it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the review; the applicant also did not address the jurisdictional issue in submissions.
The applicant's allegations of non-notice and breach of the 60-day rule under Order 21 Rule 1 could not be entertained because the vehicle chosen (an application for review under the Law Reform Act) was itself incompetent in judicial review proceedings. The court did not reach the merits of these allegations.
Legal principles established
#- A court sitting on judicial review has no jurisdiction to review or set aside its own orders; its jurisdiction is confined to sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the only remedy is an appeal to the Court of Appeal
Court orders
#- 1.The interested party's application dated 4th April 2019 seeking review of the judgment of 14th June 2018 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded against the applicant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Law Reform Act Cap 26, sections 8 and 9; Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Article 50 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement & 3 others; Nchiru Catholic Church and Parish through the Diocese of Meru (Catholic) Registered Ex parte Domiciano M Ratanya [2020] KEELC 3532 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Ex-Parte Judicial Review Application dated 20th June 2008 (Uringu Adjudication Section, Objection No. M832 re Land Parcel No. 1873). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/3532/eng@2020-02-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.