Kironua & 8 others (Suing as Representatives of Mailua Group Ranch) v Director Land Adjudication and Settlement & 3 others; Siamito & 9 others (Interested Parties) (Judicial Review E005 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 881 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kajiado court allowed a late judicial review filing over Mailua Group Ranch management, finding the short delay explained and nobody prejudiced.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 12-day delay in filing the substantive judicial review motion was excusable
The delay was not unreasonable; it was explained by the consent judgment and settlement efforts, and no prejudice would be suffered by the Respondents or Interested Parties
The court applied the Salat v IEBC extension-of-time principles: basis for delay, prejudice, absence of undue delay, and public interest. Counsel explained the delay by reference to the consent order entered on 1st November 2023 and the failed settlement negotiations. The court also noted related pending suits, including JR 968 of 2017 where the 3rd Interested Party was found in contempt, and the public interest in the management of Mailua Group Ranch with over 5,000 members. The court was satisfied the delay was not unreasonable and that granting the extension occasioned no prejudice.
Whether the substantive motion filed out of time and without extension should be struck out under Order 53 Rule 3(1)
The Preliminary Objection lacked merit and was dismissed; the court exercised its discretion under Order 50 Rule 6 to deem the substantive motion as filed with leave
The Respondents and Interested Parties argued that the substantive motion filed on 21st November 2023 was late under Order 53 Rule 3(1) and an afterthought, relying on Obado and Abdullahi v National Land Commission. The court found, however, that the 21-day period lapsed on or about 13th November 2023, that the delay was explained by the consent judgment and settlement efforts, and that the extension was justified in the public interest. The Preliminary Objection was therefore dismissed.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable, discretionary remedy for which the applicant must lay a basis, explaining the delay, showing absence of prejudice and, where relevant, public interest
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 15th January 2024 is dismissed with no orders as to costs
- 2.The Notice of Motion dated 30th January 2024 is allowed
- 3.The Substantive Motion dated and filed in court on 21st November 2023 is allowed to have been filed with leave of Court
- 4.Costs be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 50 Rule 1 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (extension of time in judicial review proceedings under Order 53)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kironua & 8 others (Suing as Representatives of Mailua Group Ranch) v Director Land Adjudication and Settlement & 3 others; Siamito & 9 others (Interested Parties) (Judicial Review E005 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 881 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review Case (Ex parte) – Kajiado; related to Judicial Review Case No. 968 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/881/eng@2025-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.