Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedJudicial Review Application dated 2/06/2025 (leave application)· [2025] KEELC 8392 (KLR)

Wango v Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E046 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8392 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
3 December 2025
1,798 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court confirmed Kenya's six-month deadline for judicial review is absolute — no extensions, even for land restrictions challenged 11 years late.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Ex Parte Applicant moved the High Court at Thika by Notice of Motion dated 2 June 2025 seeking leave to apply for certiorari to quash two decisions - an Assistant County Commissioner's letter of 30 October 2013 leading to a restriction on parcel Ndumberi/Riabai/1900 on 4 November 2013, and a Deputy County Commissioner's letter of 24 June 2014 leading to a further restriction - and leave for mandamus compelling the Registrar of Lands, Kiambu County to revoke the restrictions. The Respondent filed no response. The Court, on its own motion, flagged that the decisions were made 11 and 12 years before the leave application, contrary to the six-month limit in Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Counsel's submissions avoided the limitation issue. Relying on the binding Court of Appeal decision in Wilson Osolo v John Ojiambo Ochola and High Court authorities including Sabiha Kassamia and the Kemei J decision, Mogeni J held that the six-month period is mandatory and that the Court has no power to extend time for Judicial Review. Time ran from the dates of the decisions, and the Applicant showed no appeal or alternative process tolling it. The leave application was dismissed as time-barred with no order as to costs, with an indication that the Applicant may pursue review, setting aside or appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the six-month limitation for leave to apply for certiorari under Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 Rule 2 is mandatory

Holding

It is mandatory; leave cannot be granted outside six months from the date of the decision

Reasoning

Both Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules are couched in mandatory terms that leave shall not be granted unless the application is made not later than six months after the decision. The Court of Appeal in Wilson Osolo held there is no power to extend that statutory time, and this position binds the Court. The decisions sought to be quashed were made in 2013 and 2014, and the Applicant showed no appeal or alternative engagement with the Respondent that would toll the period.

p. 3
02

Whether the Court can extend time to file Judicial Review proceedings

Holding

No; there is no power to extend time for filing Judicial Review proceedings under the Law Reform Act or Order 53 Rule 2

Reasoning

Following Wilson Osolo v John Ojiambo Ochola, the six-month period is fixed by statute, and the extension mechanisms in the Civil Procedure Rules cannot enlarge a time limit set by statute. The Limitation of Actions Act offers no relief here. The Applicant was advised to pursue other remedies such as review, setting aside or appeal.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Leave to apply for certiorari must be sought within six months of the decision, and the Court has no power to extend that time

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 2/06/2025 seeking leave to file Judicial Review proceedings is dismissed as time-barred
  2. 2.No order as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act (Cap 26)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wango v Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E046 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8392 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review Application dated 2/06/2025 (leave application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8392/eng@2025-12-03

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