Republic v Naivasha District Land Registrar & 2 others; Nganga (Suing as trustees of the Members Naivasha Uiguano Group) & 2 others (Exparte); Muneria & another (Applicant) (Suing as trustees on behalf of 94 other Members of Naivasha Uiguano Group)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled it cannot review its own judicial review judgment — the only option for an unhappy party is to appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a judicial review judgment is amenable to review under Section 80 CPA and Order 45
It is not; judicial review is a special jurisdiction under the Law Reform Act and Order 53, and the only recourse is an appeal
The court relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Biren Amritlal Shah, holding that where the High Court exercises its special jurisdiction under the Law Reform Act it has no jurisdiction to review its own orders. Section 8(3) makes the order final and Section 8(5) provides for appeal. The FAA contains no similar provision, so the LRA and Order 53 govern.
Whether the court's inherent jurisdiction can be invoked to set aside the judgment
Inherent jurisdiction exists in principle but was declined on the facts; no manifest injustice or court mistake was demonstrated
The court distinguished James Njuguna Njoroge and Kenya Bus Service, where ex parte proceedings or consent judgments caused manifest injustice to persons unaware of proceedings. Here the applicants were members of the same group in a leadership wrangle, likely aware of the proceedings, and were not dispensed with as ordinary members; substantive disputes belong in other fora.
Whether the applicants' locus based on trusteeship could bar their application
No; the dispute over who are the proper trustees cannot be determined in judicial review and cannot deny the applicants a hearing
The court held that the internal trusteeship dispute of the Naivasha Uiguano Group is not a matter for judicial review, echoing Turbo Munyaka. The ex parte applicants did not dispute the applicants' membership of the group, which could have entitled them to seek joinder and be heard.
Legal principles established
#- A court has no jurisdiction to review its own judgment in judicial review proceedings; the sole remedy of an aggrieved person is an appeal to the Court of Appeal under Section 8(5) of the Law Reform Act
- Rules outside Order 53, including Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, do not apply to facilitate setting aside a judicial review judgment
- Any person has a right to a fair hearing, and any person whom the court considers ought to be served should be served with the judicial review notice of motion under Order 53 rule 4
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated April 19, 2022 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the ex parte applicants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 8(3) and 8(5) of the Law Reform Act; Environment and Land Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Naivasha District Land Registrar & 2 others; Nganga (Suing as trustees of the Members Naivasha Uiguano Group) & 2 others (Exparte); Muneria & another (Applicant) (Suing as trustees on behalf of 94 other Members of Naivasha Uiguano Group)", Case Analysis (2022). Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 2 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/14790/eng@2022-11-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.