M’aitumitu Kamau v District Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer & another;Pasilius Mboya M’mingane & another [2021] KEELC 911 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Meru court dismissed a judicial review case because it was filed nearly five years late, confirming the six-month limit for certiorari cannot be extended.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the judicial review leave application was time-barred under Order 53 rule 2 / Section 9(2) of the Law Reform Act
Yes; the preliminary objection was upheld and the proceedings dismissed
The exparte application was brought under Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53. The decision challenged was made on 31.8.2016 and the application filed in July 2021, far outside the six-month period for certiorari. Time limits imposed by statute cannot be extended via Civil Procedure Rules, and the court has no discretion to extend the statutory period.
Whether the Fair Administrative Actions Act or constitutional provisions relax the strict limitation regime
The court applied the position that Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act remain mandatory notwithstanding the FAAY Act and Article 23's proviso
While Articles 22, 23 and 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Actions Act supplement the old framework, and Section 9(1) of FAAY disfavors procedural technicalities, Section 14 preserves prior practice and procedure. The court adopted authority that Section 9(3) is mandatory ('shall') and remains constitutional.
Legal principles established
#- A court has no discretion to extend the statutory six-month period within which an application for certiorari may be brought under Section 9 of the Law Reform Act
- Civil Procedure Rules procedures cannot be used to extend time limits imposed by statute (the Law Reform Act)
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection dated 4.10.2021 is upheld
- 2.The proceedings herein are dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act Cap 26 and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "M’aitumitu Kamau v District Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer & another;Pasilius Mboya M’mingane & another [2021] KEELC 911 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/911/eng@2021-11-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.