Republic v Chairman Uasin Gishu Land Disputes Tribunal & another; Baroswa (Exparte); Kitilit (Interested Party) (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E20 of 2022) [2023] KEELC 859 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a judicial review challenge to a 2011 Tribunal land award because it was filed 11 years late—well past the six-month deadline.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the judicial review application was filed out of time
Yes; the application was made 11 years after the Tribunal's award and 5 years after its adoption, far beyond the six-month period, and no extension is available under the Law Reform Act
Section 9 of the Law Reform Act and order 53(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules prescribe six months for leave to seek certiorari. The court applied Wilson Osolo, holding that statutory time limits cannot be extended via procedural rules. Although judicial review relief now also exists under the Constitution, the FAAA and the ELC Act, the applicant had chosen the Law Reform Act route and was bound by its limitation, rendering the application defective.
Whether judicial review orders can be directed at a private individual (the interested party)
Prohibition against an individual is generally impermissible, but where the Tribunal's award was directed at an individual, reviewing that decision necessarily entails orders against that individual
The court agreed that judicial review remedies lie against public bodies exercising public or quasi-judicial functions, endorsing the respondents' objection in principle. However, it recognised that a review of a Tribunal award directed at a private individual would necessarily involve orders binding that individual, so this ground alone did not dispose of the application; the time-bar did.
Legal principles established
#- Time limited by statute under section 9 of the Law Reform Act cannot be extended using the Civil Procedure Rules
- An applicant who opts to move under the Law Reform Act and order 53 is bound by its six-month limitation, though judicial review may alternatively be anchored under the Constitution or the Fair Administrative Action Act without leave
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection is upheld and the application for leave to apply for judicial review is struck out
- 2.Costs to the respondent and the interested party
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act (cap 26), sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (cap 21) and order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Chairman Uasin Gishu Land Disputes Tribunal & another; Baroswa (Exparte); Kitilit (Interested Party) (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E20 of 2022) [2023] KEELC 859 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment (ex parte chamber summons). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/859/eng@2023-02-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.