Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissed· [2021] KEELC 288 (KLR)

Gerald Nteere M’arachi v Land Adjudication Officer Meru Central (Ruiri/Rwarera Adjudication Section); John Muriungu Arachi (Interested Party) [2021] KEELC 288 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 December 2021
489 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed that judicial review is filed in time if the leave application meets the six-month deadline, not the later substantive motion.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Meru (C.K. Nzili, ELC Judge) determines a preliminary objection dated 26.8.2020 by the interested party against the exparte applicant's notice of motion dated 14.2.2018 seeking certiorari. The interested party argued that the certiorari prayers were time barred because the decision sought to be quashed was made on 25.5.2018 yet proceedings were said to have commenced on 17.12.2018, beyond six months under Sections 8 & 9 of the Law Reform Act read with Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court found the chamber summons for leave was filed on 13.11.2018, within the six-month period expiring on 25.11.2018, and the substantive motion was filed within the 21 days allowed. The court held that Order 53 Rule 2's six-month requirement applies to the application for leave, not the notice of motion. Relying on Njuguna –vs- Minister for Agriculture and Henry Njagi Muruariua –vs- A.O. Akello, the court further held that leave, once granted, cannot be set aside suo moto by a court of concurrent jurisdiction without applying before the judge who granted it, and that the court had become functus officio on the issue of leave. The preliminary objection was dismissed with costs, and the parties were directed to comply with Order 11 within 45 days.

Key legal issues

#
01

Limitation for certiorari under Order 53 Rule 2

Holding

The six-month period applies to the application for leave, not the notice of motion; the leave application here was filed within time

Reasoning

The decision sought to be quashed was made on 25.5.2018, so the six-month period expired on 25.11.2018. The chamber summons for leave was filed on 13.11.2018, within time. The substantive notice of motion was filed within the 21 days allowed when leave was granted, complying with Order 53 rule 3(1).

p. 1
02

Functus officio on grant of leave

Holding

After granting leave, the court cannot revisit the issue of leave suo moto; a party seeking to set aside leave must apply before the judge who granted it

Reasoning

Following Njuguna –vs- Minister for Agriculture and Henry Njagi Muruariua –vs- A.O. Akello, a court of concurrent jurisdiction cannot set aside orders granting leave suo moto. The interested party did not follow the procedure; leave having been granted, the court is functus officio on that issue.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The six-month limitation period under Order 53 Rule 2 applies to the application for leave, not to the filing of the substantive notice of motion
  • Once leave to apply for judicial review has been granted, the court is functus officio on the issue of leave and leave cannot be set aside suo moto without following the prescribed procedure

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection dated 26.8.2020 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the preliminary objection to the exparte applicant
  3. 3.Parties ordered to comply with Order 11 within 45 days from the date of the ruling

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Law Reform ActSections 8 & 9
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 53 Rule 2
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 53 rule 3(1)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 11

Cases cited (4)

  • Nakumatt Holdings Ltd. –vs- Commissioner of Value Added Tax
    [2011] eKLR
  • Republic –vs- Kenya Highways Authority & 2 Others Ex-parte –vs- Amica Business Solutions Ltd
    [2016] eKLR
  • Henry Njagi Muruariua –vs- A.O. Akello District Commissioner Mbeere District & Another
    [2014] eKLR
  • Njuguna –vs- Minister for Agriculture
    [2000] E A 184
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 8 & 9 of the Law Reform Act as read together with Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gerald Nteere M’arachi v Land Adjudication Officer Meru Central (Ruiri/Rwarera Adjudication Section); John Muriungu Arachi (Interested Party) [2021] KEELC 288 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/288/eng@2021-12-20

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