Republic v Land Registrar; Bungoma & another; Grace Nasimiyu Mufutu (Exparte Applicant) (Miscellaneous Application E003 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 6741 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's courts dismissed a landowner's challenge to title cancellation purely because she filed three years late — the six-month judicial review deadline is strict and unforgiving.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Limitation period for judicial review applications
The application, filed 12th April 2024, was more than six months after the impugned decisions of March and December 2021 and was therefore out of time
Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act bars grant of leave for certiorari more than six months after the judgment, order, decree, conviction or other proceedings sought to be quashed. The decision impugned was made on 15/03/2021 and published in Gazette Notice No. 6789 of December 2021, so the filing in April 2024 was far out of time.
Whether time could be extended
There is no lawful basis to extend time for commencing judicial review proceedings; Article 159(2)(d) does not assist
Following Court of Appeal authority, the six-month period in Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act is a statutory limit that cannot be extended via Civil Procedure Rules or Article 159(2)(d). The court found no law on which an extension application could be grounded.
Lawfulness of the Land Registrar's cancellation of titles
Not determined, as the application was dismissed on limitation grounds
The applicant's claim that the Registrar cancelled the titles without colour of right was never reached on its merits because the action was time-barred; the court disposed of the matter purely on the limitation issue.
Legal principles established
#- Applications for prerogative orders of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition must be brought within six months of the impugned decision under Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act
- Time limits fixed by statute (Law Reform Act) cannot be extended through Civil Procedure Rules provisions
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 28th May 2024 is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs since the application proceeded ex-parte
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 & 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Land Registrar; Bungoma & another; Grace Nasimiyu Mufutu (Exparte Applicant) (Miscellaneous Application E003 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 6741 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Judicial Review E020 of 2024 (Notice of Motion dated 28th May 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6741/eng@2024-10-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.