Republic v Senior Resident Magistrate Kiambu Law Courts & 2 others; Kamau (Exparte); Gachoka & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Judicial Review 1 of 2022) [2022] KEELC 3192 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed a landowner's attempt to quash a magistrate's orders, because she skipped appeal and review remedies and missed the six-month deadline.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a prima facie case was established for leave to apply for judicial review
The application failed; no prima facie case was established and the proceedings were premature
The court observed the chequered litigation history between the parties, noted that the orders of 3/7/2020 had been discharged on 10/8/2020 and that a nonexistent order cannot be quashed. The lower court case remained pending and the applicant could pursue remedies there. The mandamus prayer also failed because the subdivisions predated the impugned orders.
Whether the six-month limitation under section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act applies to challenges against court decisions
Yes; the bar is mandatory for certiorari against judgments, orders, decrees, convictions or proceedings
The court distinguished the Sidian Bank decision, holding that it concerned a Land Registrar's decision, which is not a judgment, order, decree or conviction. The applicant's submission that the six-month bar does not apply to court decisions was found unfounded; the first impugned order was discharged and the second order of 27/9/2021 was never annexed.
Whether judicial review could proceed without exhaustion of alternative remedies
No; review and appeal remedies were available and had to be exhausted first
Applying Nuh Abdille Hassan and Speaker v Karume, the court held that although the impugned decision was not an administrative action under the Fair Administrative Action Act, where a written law provides a remedy such as review or appeal, judicial review cannot be entertained unless those remedies are exhausted. The applicant's suit was premature.
Whether the trial court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction over land valued at approximately Kshs. 30 million
The court noted the concern but declined to pronounce itself definitively
The court observed that the 3rd respondent's sale agreement indicated a purchase price of Kshs. 24 million, exceeding the Kshs. 20 million pecuniary ceiling for a Chief Magistrate under section 7(1)(a) of the Magistrates' Courts Act. However, it was unclear whether the objection was raised before the magistrate, and the court declined to elaborate further.
Legal principles established
#- Where there are internal mechanisms such as review or appeal, or where a written law provides a remedy, the court is barred from entertaining judicial review unless such remedies are exhausted
- Where a clear procedure for redress of a grievance is prescribed by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure should be strictly followed
- Certiorari issues to quash a decision already made, particularly where the decision was made without or in excess of jurisdiction or where rules of natural justice were not complied with
Court orders
#- 1.The application is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 53 rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act; sections 8 and 9 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Senior Resident Magistrate Kiambu Law Courts & 2 others; Kamau (Exparte); Gachoka & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Judicial Review 1 of 2022) [2022] KEELC 3192 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Judicial Review Chamber Summons dated 19th January 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/3192/eng@2022-06-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.