Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedChamber Summons dated 18th December, 2024· [2025] KEELC 5155 (KLR)

Republic v Deputy Commissioner, Makueni Sub County & 3 others; Mulwa (Ex parte Applicant); Ngui (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 5155 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya (Environment and Land Division)
10 July 2025
1,501 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 the six-month deadline to file judicial review cases in Kenya cannot be extended, so acting promptly after an adverse decision is essential.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling determined a Chamber Summons dated 18th December 2024 in which the Exparte Applicant sought leave to bring judicial review proceedings out of time, challenging a Minister's decision of 5th September 2022 in appeal No. 64 of 1993 (Francis Mulwa v Philip Wambua Nguli) concerning plot Ukia/Mukuyuni/1793. The applicant purchased the plot in 1978; after adjudication it was registered in equal shares between him and the Interested Party. The Minister dismissed his appeal on the ground that the parties could not be traced on the ground, and the applicant claimed he only learnt of the decision later, thereafter filing a suit in the Chief Magistrate's Court which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. He relied on Article 47 of the Constitution and authorities holding that extension of time for judicial review may be granted where sufficient cause is shown, arguing that mistakes of counsel should not be visited on an innocent party. The Interested Party opposed, contending the application was an afterthought and that judicial review is time-bound with no extension provision. The court framed a single issue: whether extension of time ought to be granted. Applying Wilson Osolo and the Amagoro Tribunal case, it held that judicial review is a special jurisdiction under the Law Reform Act and Order 53, whose six-month limit for certiorari cannot be extended by importing other provisions. It further found that the applicant had not acted promptly even after awareness, and dismissed the application with costs to the Interested Party.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court has jurisdiction to extend time for filing judicial review proceedings

Holding

No - the six-month limit for certiorari under section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act, echoed in Order 53 Rule 2, cannot be extended; extension provisions applicable to the Civil Procedure Rules cannot be availed of for time limited by statute.

Reasoning

The court held that judicial review is a special jurisdiction governed substantively by the Law Reform Act and procedurally by Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The six-month limitation in section 9(3) for certiorari cannot be enlarged by importing Civil Procedure Act provisions or Order 49. The applicant, being out of time since the Minister's decision of 5th September 2022, could not benefit from the persuasive authorities permitting extension where sufficient cause is shown.

p. 4
02

Whether the applicant's delay was excusable even if an extension power existed

Holding

No - the applicant did nothing to pursue judicial review even under the Fair Administrative Actions Act after learning of the decision, instead filing a suit in the Chief Magistrate's Court.

Reasoning

The Minister's decision was delivered on 5th September 2022. Although the applicant claimed awareness only in 2023, he thereafter filed a suit in the Chief Magistrate's Court, which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, rather than moving promptly for judicial review. The court found that even under the Fair Administrative Actions Act, which requires no leave, the applicant had not acted, so no extension would have been granted in any event.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Judicial review proceedings are special in nature governed by the Law Reform Act and Order 53; no other provisions may be imported to extend time limits set by statute

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application for extension of time to file judicial review proceedings dismissed with costs to the Interested Party
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Deputy Commissioner, Makueni Sub County & 3 others; Mulwa (Ex parte Applicant); Ngui (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 5155 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 18th December, 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5155/eng@2025-07-10

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