Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedEnvironment and Land Judicial Review Case E3 of 2021· [2022] KEELC 13745 (KLR)

Kimari & another v Land Registrar Nakuru Land Registry

Environment and Land Court
25 October 2022
FNFM Njoroge
387 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court threw out a landowners' case because they never filed the required follow-up application after getting permission to sue.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicants, administrators of the estate of the late Kenneth Kimani Kahura, obtained leave on 22/03/2021 to apply for an order of mandamus compelling the removal or lifting of a restriction registered over L.R Nakuru/Municipality Block 5/294 under section 78(1) and (2) of the Land Registration Act, 2012. Leave was granted on condition that the substantive Notice of Motion be filed within 21 days. The applicants never filed the substantive motion. When the matter came up for judgment, D. O. Ohungo J realised there was no substantive application to determine and gave directions on 27/04/2022, which were emailed to the ex parte applicants on 13/10/2022 but drew no response. The court had also called for the Notice of Motion several times without success. FM Njoroge J held that with no substantive application on record there was nothing to determine, leaving the court no option but to vacate the leave granted on 22/03/2021 and dismiss the chamber summons dated 18/03/2021. The court ordered that each party bear its own costs and that the file be marked as closed. The ruling was delivered electronically at Nakuru on 25 October 2022. No substantive determination was made on the merits of the restriction or the mandamus claim.

Key legal issues

#
01

Consequence of failure to file the substantive judicial review motion

Holding

The leave granted was vacated and the chamber summons dismissed because no substantive Notice of Motion was ever filed despite directions and repeated calls

Reasoning

Leave to apply for mandamus was granted on 22/03/2021 with 21 days to file the substantive motion. The applicants never filed it. Directions issued on 27/04/2022 and emailed on 13/10/2022 elicited no response, and the court's repeated calls for the Notice of Motion went unheeded. With no substantive application on record, the court vacated the leave, dismissed the chamber summons, ordered each party to bear own costs, and closed the file.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Where an ex parte applicant fails to file the substantive judicial review motion after leave is granted, the court may vacate the leave and mark the file as closed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The leave granted pursuant to the chamber summons dated 18/3/2021 is vacated and that application is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party shall bear their own costs of the proceedings
  3. 3.The file shall be marked by the court registry as closed

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration Actsection 78(1) & (2)
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (leave granted under order of 22/03/2021; leave to apply for mandamus under section 78(1) & (2) of the Land Registration Act, 2012 sought)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kimari & another v Land Registrar Nakuru Land Registry", Case Analysis (2022). Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E3 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/13745/eng@2022-10-25

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