Republic v Rift Valley Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee & another; Kiberenge & 2 others (Exparte Applicants) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 1 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 4310 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kitale dismissed a late judicial review challenge to a land eviction order, confirming Kenya's six-month certiorari deadline cannot be extended.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Time limitation under Order 53 and the Law Reform Act
The application, filed on 28/2/2022 against an eviction order of 13/10/2021, was outside the six-month period and statute barred; the court cannot enlarge time.
Order 53 Rule 2 and Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act impose a six-month limit from the decision sought to be quashed. The last order was of 13/10/2021 yet the motion was filed on 28/2/2022 without any power of extension existing in law, as confirmed in Wilson Osolo and the Amagoro Land Disputes Tribunal case.
Failure to lodge certified proceedings under Order 53 Rule 7
In the absence of certified impugned proceedings and decisions, there was nothing before the court to quash.
Order 53 requires the impugned order or record to be lodged verified by an affidavit. The certified proceedings leading to the judgment, decree and eviction order were never supplied despite the OCS seeking authentication. The court therefore agreed with the respondents that nothing was before it for quashing.
Alleged breach of natural justice and fair administrative action
The burden lay on the applicants to demonstrate the breach with tangible evidence, which they failed to do; what was before the magistrate in October 2021 was post-judgment execution proceedings under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The adoption of the award in 2008/2009 predated Articles 47 and 50 of the 2010 Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act. The respondents acted within the statutory framework of the defunct Land Disputes Tribunal Act, and the applicants did not demonstrate how the adoption, decree or execution was illegal or unprocedural.
Judicial review versus contested questions of land ownership
Judicial review examines the decision-making process, not the merits; the applicants' ownership claims based on unauthenticated documents belong in a substantive suit, not judicial review.
Citing Diamond Hashim Lalji, Lydia Cherubet and Speaker of National Assembly v Njenga Karume, the court held that where a party urges the court to determine competing versions of ownership on contested facts, judicial review jurisdiction is improperly invoked and the party should resort to regular forums.
Locus standi of the exparte applicants
The applicants' standing was in doubt as they were not parties to the Tribunal or adoption proceedings and never sought to be enjoined or to lodge objection proceedings.
The applicants were strangers to the previous cases and did not seek to be enjoined as interested parties or objectors to the decree or its enforcement. Their remedy, if aggrieved by execution against other plots, lay in objection proceedings under Order 22 or occupation rights under Section 152A of the Land Act.
Legal principles established
#- The validity of a decision sought to be quashed by certiorari cannot be challenged unless certified copies of the impugned proceedings and orders verified by an affidavit are lodged before the hearing of the motion.
- An application for certiorari must be brought within six months of the decision and there is no power to extend that period under the Law Reform Act or Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- Where a party seeks to have judicial review determine contested matters of land ownership, the jurisdiction of the court is improperly invoked.
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the notice of motion dated 28/2/2022
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act; Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Rift Valley Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee & another; Kiberenge & 2 others (Exparte Applicants) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 1 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 4310 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review Notice of Motion dated 28/2/2022 (ELC Kitale). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4310/eng@2025-06-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.