Republic v Cabinet Secretary-State Department for Lands & Physical Planning & 2 others; Otieno & 3 others (Exparte Applicants); Ojwang & 4 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3575 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed a judicial review case because the applicants filed their main application 17 days after the court's 21-day deadline, voiding everything.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether leave to commence judicial review was sought and granted
Leave was sought by Chamber Summons dated 30th April, 2024 and granted on 6th May, 2024, so the first ground of the objection failed on that factual basis
The court perused the record and found the Chamber Summons filed on 3rd May, 2024 seeking leave, and the court granting leave on 6th May, 2024 in terms of prayer (4) with directions that the main motion be filed and served within 21 days. The objection ground that no leave had been sought therefore did not accord with the record.
Whether the substantive motion was filed within the leave as granted
Leave was conditional on filing the substantive motion within 21 days, i.e. by 27th May, 2024; it was filed on 13th June, 2024, so the leave had lapsed and the motion was a nullity
The judge directed the substantive motion be filed within 21 days, expiring 27th May, 2024. The motion was filed on 13th June, 2024, some seventeen days late. No extension of leave or fresh application for leave was sought, so there was no subsisting leave to found the substantive motion, which was consequently filed without leave and liable to dismissal as a nullity.
Whether the application was time barred under Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act
This ground lacked merit because leave had already been granted within time on 6th May, 2024; the six-month period bars the grant of leave, not its exercise
Section 9(3) prohibits the grant of leave for certiorari beyond six months of the decision. The decision challenged was delivered on 3rd November, 2023 and leave was granted on 6th May, 2024, within six months. The court therefore held the limitation ground lacked merit, though the motion still failed for breach of the 21-day condition attached to the leave.
Legal principles established
#- Leave to commence judicial review proceedings lapses if its conditions (including the time for filing the substantive motion) are not complied with, and a motion filed after lapse of leave is a nullity
- The six-month prohibition in Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act is absolute and cannot be enlarged under the Civil Procedure Rules
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondents' preliminary objection dated 13th November, 2024 is allowed with costs to the parties that raised and supported it
- 2.The Judicial Review Application is dismissed with costs to the parties who supported the objection
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 9 of the Law Reform Act, Cap 26
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Cabinet Secretary-State Department for Lands & Physical Planning & 2 others; Otieno & 3 others (Exparte Applicants); Ojwang & 4 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3575 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3575/eng@2025-04-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.