Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedJudicial Review Application dated 13th November, 2024· [2025] KEELC 1234 (KLR)

Danda v Senior Principal Magistrate Ndiwa Law Court & 3 others (Miscellaneous Judicial Review E013 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1234 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
11 March 2025
FNF. Nyagaka
1,616 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court confirmed that you cannot use judicial review to challenge a magistrate's court ruling in Kenya — your remedy is an appeal, filed on time.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an ex parte judicial review application under Order 53 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act, in which the applicant sought leave to apply for certiorari to quash the ruling of 30th October 2024 and entire proceedings in Ndhiwa SPM'S ELC No. E022 of 2024, and prohibition against the Land Registrar Homa-Bay from implementing a 1986 Minister's judgment under the Land Adjudication Act in case no. 699 of 1985. The applicant also sought that leave operate as a stay and that there be no orders as to costs. The respondents filed no response. Counsel for the applicant argued that the Minister's decree had become obsolete after 12 years and that the subordinate court lacked jurisdiction to implement it, characterising the 1st Respondent's ruling as administrative action. The court framed a single issue: whether the leave application was merited. It accepted that the application was filed within the six-month period under Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act. However, on the merits, the court held that the impugned ruling - which had allowed the plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction in a land claim founded on fraud and cancellation of title - was delivered by the magistrate in exercise of a judicial, not administrative or quasi-judicial, function. Such decisions are appealable to the High Court under Sections 65(1) and 79G of the Civil Procedure Act, as applied to the Environment and Land Court by Section 19(2) of that Act, and are not amenable to judicial review. Applying Rhoda Wanjiru Kibunja, the court found the application without merit and dismissed it with no order as to costs, since the application was an ex parte chamber summons, and ordered the file closed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a subordinate court's ruling in a civil suit can be quashed by way of judicial review

Holding

No - the ruling was a judicial function of the trial magistrate, not administrative action, so it is not amenable to judicial review and the applicant's remedy is appeal

Reasoning

The court examined the impugned ruling of 30th October 2024, which had allowed the plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction in a land claim founded on fraud and cancellation of title. The magistrate was acting as a judicial body under the Civil Procedure Act, whose decisions lie on appeal to the High Court under Section 65(1) and Section 79G. Following Rhoda Wanjiru Kibunja, grounds against such decisions are grounds of appeal, not judicial review.

p. 3
02

Whether the leave application was filed within the six-month limitation period under Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act

Holding

Yes - the ruling sought to be quashed was delivered on 30th October 2024 and the application was filed within the stipulated timeline

Reasoning

The court recited Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act requiring certiorari leave applications within six months. Although the application was in time, this did not save it because the substantive objection - that the decision was judicial rather than administrative - defeated the application on the merits.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Orders made by a Magistrate's Court in exercise of its judicial function are not amenable to judicial review as administrative action; the remedy is appeal
  • An application for leave to seek certiorari must be made within six months of the decision sought to be quashed (Section 9(3), Law Reform Act)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs
  3. 3.The file is to be closed

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 53 Rule 3(1)
  • Law Reform Act, Cap 26Sections 8 and 9(3)
  • Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21Sections 65(1), 79G
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 19(2)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 165(3)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 42
  • Land Adjudication Act

Cases cited (1)

  • Rhoda Wanjiru Kibunja v R.O Mbogo, Resident Magistrate, Children's Court, Milimani & another
    [2019] KEHC 12060 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 53 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Danda v Senior Principal Magistrate Ndiwa Law Court & 3 others (Miscellaneous Judicial Review E013 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1234 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review Application dated 13th November, 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1234/eng@2025-03-11

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