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 Application (Chamber Summons dated 22/12/2020 and Notice of Motion dated 17/2/2021), Environment and Land Court, Thika· [2021] KEELC 756 (KLR)

Republic v Senior Principal Magistrate Kikuyu Law Courts; Mary Wambui Wanyoike (Interested Party); Proland Holdings Limited (Applicant) [2021] KEELC 756 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 November 2021
3,830 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed a company's bid to stop land transfer proceedings, ruling you cannot get injunctions before judicial review leave is granted.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, a limited liability company, had purchased a one-acre portion of L.R No. 7497/18 from the Interested Party and sued for specific performance in Kikuyu MCL&E No. 15 of 2019, obtaining injunctive orders on 17/12/2019. Because of a typographical error in the order (LR 7491/18 instead of 7497/18), the orders could not be registered. The Applicant moved the trial court to correct the error; the Magistrate declined interim preservatory orders and directed an inter partes hearing. The Applicant then filed a Chamber Summons dated 22/12/2020 seeking leave to apply for certiorari to quash the Magistrate's directions and prohibition against further handling of the dispute, with prayers that leave operate as injunction and stay. After this Court (Gacheru J) directed correction of the typo, which the trial court effected on 31/12/2020, the Applicant discovered further subdivisions of the land and filed a Notice of Motion dated 17/2/2021 seeking injunctions over the new parcels, stay of the lower court proceedings, and cancellation of the new titles. The Interested Party filed a Preliminary Ob arguing that the Motion offended Order 53 Rule 1 and Section 8 of the Law Reform Act, and that the Chamber Summons was overtaken by events. The Court upheld the Preliminary Objection, holding that without granted leave there was no substantive suit to anchor interim injunctive relief. It further held that the certiorari and prayers were moot: the typo had been corrected and the Magistrate transferred. Both applications failed; costs were awarded to the Interested Party.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ELC judicial review court can entertain an injunction application filed without prior leave under Order 53 Rule 1

Holding

It cannot; a leave application does not constitute a substantive suit capable of anchoring interim injunctive relief, so the Notice of Motion dated 17/2/2021 was struck out

Reasoning

Order 53 Rule 1 requires leave before any application for mandamus, prohibition or certiorari. At the leave stage there is no substantive judicial review suit on record. Consequently interim orders in the nature of injunctions over the suit properties, and prayers to cancel titles, were incompetent and were disposed of by the Preliminary Objection, which raised a pure point of law under the Mukisa Biscuit test.

p. 5
02

Whether the Chamber Summons dated 22/12/2020 seeking leave for certiorari and prohibition was overtaken by events

Holding

Yes; the typographical error had been corrected pursuant to this Court's directions of 28/12/2020 and the Magistrate had been transferred, rendering certiorari and prohibition otiose

Reasoning

The Court found that Lady Justice Gacheru's directions of 23/12/2020 and orders of 28/12/2020 resulted in the trial court rectifying the typographical error on 31/12/2020, mooting the impugned directions of 8/12/2020. The uncontroverted evidence that Hon L. N. Musyoka had been transferred removed the substratum of the prohibition prayer. The Applicant therefore failed to demonstrate an arguable or prima facie case warranting leave.

p. 6
03

Whether the ELC has jurisdiction to grant prerogative orders

Holding

Yes; the Court exercises the same prerogative powers as the High Court in England under Section 8 of the Law Reform Act, and may grant reliefs including prerogative orders and injunctions under Section 13(7) of the ELC Act

Reasoning

The Court traced the power to grant mandamus, prohibition and certiorari to Section 8 of the Law Reform Act and Article 23 of the Constitution, holding that the ELC, created under Article 162(2)(b), is not bereft of such jurisdiction. However, jurisdiction in the abstract did not save the Applicant's defective applications.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law, argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct, and cannot be raised if facts must be ascertained or judicial discretion exercised.
  • Leave is a prerequisite to a substantive judicial review application and no interim orders such as injunctions may be anchored on a leave application before a substantive suit exists.
  • The Environment and Land Court, like the High Court, has power to grant prerogative orders and interim preservation orders including injunctions under Section 13(7) of the ELC Act.
  • The 2010 Constitution expanded the scope of judicial review remedies under Articles 23 and 47.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Preliminary Objection dated the 4/5/2021 partially succeeds and is upheld
  2. 2.The application dated the 17/2/2021 is struck out
  3. 3.The Chamber Summons dated the 22/12/2020 is dismissed
  4. 4.Costs awarded in favour of the Interested Party

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 22, 23, 47, 50(1), 159(2), 162(2)(b)
  • Judicature ActSection 10
  • High Court (Organization and Administration) Act No. 27 of 2015Sections 10(4), 39(2); Rules 16-19(1-5)
  • Law Reform ActSection 8
  • Fair Administrative Actions ActSections 8 and 11
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 13(7)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 53 Rule 1

Cases cited (7)

  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd
    (1973) EA 358
  • Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 others
    [2003] KLR 125
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd –vs- West End Distributors Ltd
    (1969) EA 696
  • Kenya National Examination Council v Republic Ex Parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 others
    [1997] eKLR
  • Republic v County Council of Kwale & another Ex-parte Kondo & 57 others
    Mombasa HCMCA No. 384 of 1996
  • Uwe Meixner & Another v Attorney General
    [2005] eKLR
  • Felix Kiprono Matagei v Attorney General; Law Society of Kenya (Amicus Curiae)
    [2021] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Article 23 and 47 of the Constitution; Section 8 of the Law Reform Act; Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Senior Principal Magistrate Kikuyu Law Courts; Mary Wambui Wanyoike (Interested Party); Proland Holdings Limited (Applicant) [2021] KEELC 756 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Judicial Review Application (Chamber Summons dated 22/12/2020 and Notice of Motion dated 17/2/2021), Environment and Land Court, Thika. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/756/eng@2021-11-25

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