Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (Judicial Review application; Notice of Motion dated 4th March, 2022)· [2024] KEELC 7132 (KLR)

Gilbert v District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer Igamba Ng’ombe Sub-County & 2 others; Rinkuri & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E003 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 7132 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
30 October 2024
8,372 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~33 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The ex-parte applicant, Japhet Njagi Gilbert, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 4th March, 2022 seeking judicial review orders of certiorari and prohibition against the ruling of 13th January, 2022 in Appeal to the Minister Case No. 1 of 2017 concerning land parcel Marembo/Rianthiga/264 in the Marembo Adjudication Section. He alleged procedural impropriety in the adjudication and objection proceedings, including replicated cases 88 and 89 of 2010 with conflicting demarcation maps, untitled and undated minutes, and the illegal insertion of the 1st interested party's name at the objection stage. He also complained that a certificate of title was procured while the appeal to the Minister was pending. The respondents maintained that the adjudication followed the Land Adjudication Act, that the Deputy County Commissioner lawfully heard the appeal under delegated powers under Section 29(4), and that the applicant was inviting the court to review the merits. The 3rd interested party, the current registered proprietor, objected on grounds of time-bar and want of locus standi. The court framed three issues: competency of the application, locus standi, and entitlement to the orders. It found the application was filed within the six-month limitation period. However, since the applicant's complaints were essentially those of his deceased father and he held no letters of administration, he lacked legal capacity and the suit was incompetent. In any event, the applicant was attacking the merits rather than the process, having participated in the hearing before the Minister; the application was a disguised appeal. The Notice of Motion was dismissed with costs to the respondents and the 1st and 3rd interested parties.

Key legal issues

#
01

Competency of the judicial review application (limitation)

Holding

The application was competent because it was filed within six months of the impugned ruling of 13th January, 2022

Reasoning

Under Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, leave to apply for certiorari must be sought within six months. The impugned decision was dated 13th January, 2022 and the motion was filed on 4th March, 2022, well within the six-month window, defeating the interested parties' contention that the suit was filed out of time.

p. 12
02

Locus standi of an applicant suing on behalf of a deceased father's estate

Holding

The applicant lacked locus standi as he had no letters of administration in respect of his late father's estate, rendering the suit incompetent

Reasoning

The applicant's complaints were essentially grievances of his deceased father, Bernard Gitari, who passed on in 2011. The law requires a party suing on behalf of a deceased's estate to hold a grant. There being no letters of administration on record, the applicant lacked legal capacity to institute and maintain the suit, and the court found the suit incompetent on this ground.

p. 13
03

Entitlement to certiorari and prohibition

Holding

Not entitled - the applicant was attacking the merits of the Minister's decision rather than the decision-making process, and all parties were heard

Reasoning

Judicial review is confined to the decision-making process. The record showed the applicant participated in the appeal hearing on 22nd November, 2021, satisfying natural justice. His complaints about conflicting demarcation maps, replicated proceedings and scribbled minutes went to the substance of the decision, making the application a disguised appeal, which the court cannot entertain.

p. 14

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for leave to apply for certiorari must be made within six months of the decision sought to be quashed under Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules
  • A party suing on behalf of a deceased person's estate must first obtain letters of administration; without them the suit is incompetent
  • Judicial review concerns the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision; the court should not act as a court of appeal over the decision maker

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the Notice of Motion dated 4th March, 2022

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 23(3)(f), 47, 40
  • Law Reform Act (Cap 26)Sections 8, 9, 9(3)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 53 Rules 1(1), 2, 3
  • Land Adjudication Act (Cap 284)Sections 7, 18, 24, 24 & 25, 25(1), 26, 26(1), 26(2), 29, 29(4)
  • Interpretation and General Provisions Act (Cap 2)Section 38(2)
  • Land Registration Act, 2012 (No. 3 of 2012)Sections 25(1) and 26(1)

Cases cited (19)

  • Republic vs. Kenya National Examinations Council Ex-parte Gathenji and Others
    Civil Appeal No. 266 of 1996
  • Kenya National Examination Councils vs. Republic Ex-parte Geoffrey Gathenji & 9 Others
    Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 266 of 1996
  • Republic vs. Land Adjudication Officer Igembe/Tigania District
    (2009) eKLR
  • Republic vs. Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Lands and Settlement & 2 Others Ex-Parte Gerald Mbuuri Kabugu
    [2018] eKLR
  • Republic vs. County Director of Education, Nairobi & 4 Others Ex-parte Abdukadir Elmi Robleh
    [2018] eKLR
  • Msagha vs. Chief Justice & 7 Others
    Nairobi HCMCA No. 1062 of 2004 [2006] 2 KLR 553
  • Republic vs. Director of Immigration Services & 2 Others Ex-parte Olamilekan Gbenga Fasuyi & 2 Others
    (2018) eKLR
  • Republic vs. Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited & Another
    [2013] eKLR
  • East African Community vs. Railways African Union (Kenya) and Others (No. 2)
    Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1974 [1974] EA 425
  • Osolo vs. John Ojiambo Ochola & Another
  • Ako vs. Special District Commissioner Kisumu & Another
    (1989) eKLR
  • Alfred Njau vs. City Council of Nairobi
    [1983] KLR
  • Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of South Africa in re ex-parte President of Republic of South Africa
    2000 S.A 674 CC
  • Republic vs. Speaker of the Senate and Another Ex-parte Afrison Export Import Limited
    2018 eKLR
  • Republic vs. Stanley Mambo Amuti
    (2018) eKLR
  • The Kenya National Examination Council vs. Republic (Ex-parte Geoffrey Gathenji & Another)
    Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 266 of 1996
  • Julian Adoyo Ongunga vs. Francis Kiberenge Abano
    Migori Civil Appeal No. 199 of 2015
  • Republic vs. Kenya National Examination Council Ex-parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 Others
    [1997] eKLR
  • Municipal Council of Mombasa vs. Umoja Consultants Ltd
    [2002] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 23(3)(f) and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act (Cap 26); Order 53 Rules 1(1) and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gilbert v District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer Igamba Ng’ombe Sub-County & 2 others; Rinkuri & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E003 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 7132 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (Judicial Review application; Notice of Motion dated 4th March, 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/7132/eng@2024-10-30

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