Pijay Investment Company v Mohamed & 4 others (Miscellaneous Civil Application E5 of 2020) [2022] KEELC 2303 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A company lost its land dispute challenge in Malindi because it filed its judicial review application nearly a year late, beyond Kenya's strict six-month deadline.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Limitation for certiorari under Order 53 Rule 2 and Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act
The application, filed nearly 12 months after the impugned Gazette Notice, was out of time and the court has no discretion to enlarge the period
Order 53 Rule 2 and Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act require an application for leave to seek certiorari to be made within six months of the impugned proceeding. The Gazette Notice was published on 22nd November 2019 and the suit filed on 17th November 2020. The Applicant did not explain the delay, and the court lacks discretion to extend time where the applicant has chosen the Order 53 route.
Leave requirement under Order 53 Rule 1
The Applicant did not obtain leave and, having invoked Order 53, was bound by its leave requirement
The court, relying on NSSF v Sokomanja and Peter Orengo Migiro, noted that while leave is unnecessary for judicial review anchored on Article 23(3) of the Constitution or Section 7 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, it remains mandatory where the applicant proceeds under the Law Reform Act and Order 53. The Applicant chose the Order 53 route and had not been granted leave.
Existence of a parallel suit
A similar suit between the same parties over the same parcel was pending before the ELC (ELC E 17 of 2021)
The court observed on the record that a similar suit involving the same parties and the same parcel of land regarding ownership was pending before the Deputy Registrar in ELC E 17 of 2021, which counted against the Applicant's pursuit of the present judicial review application.
Legal principles established
#- Where an applicant opts for judicial review under the Law Reform Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the application for leave must be made within six months and the court has no discretion to enlarge time
- An applicant who invokes Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules is bound by the procedural requirements of those provisions
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 7th July 2021 is upheld
- 2.The Judicial Review application is struck out with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 9 of the Law Reform Act; judicial review jurisdiction under Article 47 read with Article 23 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Nyaki & another v Pijey Investments Limited & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 17 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 3507 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 3507 (KLR)3 Jun 2026
- Nyaki & another v Pijey Investments Limited & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 17 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 3507 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 3507 (KLR)3 Jun 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Pijay Investment Company v Mohamed & 4 others (Miscellaneous Civil Application E5 of 2020) [2022] KEELC 2303 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Judicial Review Application (Notice of Motion dated 17th November 2020), Malindi. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2303/eng@2022-06-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.