Republic v Land Registrar, Bomet & Elizabeth Chepkemoi Kigen Ex-parte Simon Kibet Chepkwony [2021] KEELC 292 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed a landowner to challenge a Land Registrar's cancellation of his title, ruling the six-month judicial review deadline did not apply.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Limitation under Order 53 rule 2 for certiorari
Although filed outside six months, the application for leave was competent because the impugned decision was conveyed by a letter, which is not the kind of proceeding contemplated by Order 53 rule 2
The court applied the Court of Appeal decision in the Amica Business Solutions case, holding that Order 53 rule 2 was meant to cover judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings where there was a hearing and affected parties were informed. A letter dated 25th May 2016 from the Land Registrar copied to the Applicant did not qualify as an act contemplated under Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 rule 2, so the six-month limit did not bar the application for leave.
Leave to apply for certiorari against the Land Registrar's decision
The application for leave was merited and leave was granted, with the substantive motion to be filed within 30 days
The Applicant's grievance was that the Bomet Land Registrar cancelled his title to Kericho/Kongotik/899, issued pursuant to a decree in Bomet Civil Suit No. 166 of 2003, and registered the 2nd Respondent without jurisdiction. The 2nd Respondent argued the underlying Tribunal-derived title was a nullity. The court, on the leave stage and associating itself with Article 47 jurisprudence, found the application merited and granted leave with costs.
Legal principles established
#- The six-month limitation in Order 53 rule 2 applies to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings with formal hearings, not to letters sent to specific persons in response to their requests
- Relief for administrative grievances is now measured against constitutional standards under Article 47 rather than the common law
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to apply for an order of Certiorari to remove into the High Court and quash the order/decision of the Bomet County Land Registrar made on 25th May 2016 cancelling the Applicant's registration as owner of Kericho/Kongotik/899 and registering the 2nd Respondent
- 2.The Applicant to file his substantive motion within 30 days upon delivery of the ruling
- 3.Costs of the application granted to the Applicant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 9 of the Law Reform Act; Article 47 of the Constitution on fair administrative action
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Land Registrar, Bomet & Elizabeth Chepkemoi Kigen Ex-parte Simon Kibet Chepkwony [2021] KEELC 292 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Judicial Review Application (Notice of Motion dated 29th July 2017), Kericho. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/292/eng@2021-12-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.