Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELC 8647 (KLR)

Kisele v County Director, Land Adjudication & Settlement (Makueni County) & another; Maika (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8647 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya (judicial review matter; court name not printed in the ruling)
11 December 2025
1,042 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court refused to undo its own order extending time for a judicial review case, ruling only the Court of Appeal can review such decisions.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by Hon. E. O. Obaga, Judge, determines a preliminary objection dated 7th July 2025 raised by the 1st Interested Party in judicial review proceedings. The Interested Party argued that the Ex-parte Applicant's application was incompetent, filed outside the six-month statutory period in Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act; that the court lacked jurisdiction to extend time; and that the order of 18th March 2025 granting the extension, made ex-parte and unopposed, was obtained through misrepresentation and should be set aside. The Ex-parte Applicant relied on Order 50 Rule 6 and on Sitenda Sebalu v Sam K. Njuba, contending the extension had already been granted and any challenge lay by appeal. The court held that it could not sit on appeal from its own decision; whether it had jurisdiction to extend time was a matter for the Court of Appeal alone. It further held that Order 53 is self-sustaining and other Civil Procedure Act provisions cannot be imported into it, rendering the setting-aside submissions misplaced, and that the issue of timeliness of the substantive motion was raised for the first time in submissions and was not part of the objection. The preliminary objection was found devoid of merit and dismissed with costs to the Ex-parte Applicant. The ruling was delivered via Microsoft Teams on 11th December 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court could revisit its own order of 18th March 2025 extending time

Holding

It could not; whether it had jurisdiction to extend time is determinable only by the Court of Appeal on appeal

Reasoning

The court noted that it had already granted extension of time on 18th March 2025 unopposed. The question of whether it possessed jurisdiction to do so cannot be re-opened by the same court through a preliminary objection, as that would amount to sitting on appeal from its own decision, which is impermissible.

p. 3
02

Whether the setting-aside submissions were properly before the court

Holding

They were misplaced because the substantive motion was not the subject of the preliminary objection and Order 53 cannot be supplemented by other Civil Procedure provisions

Reasoning

The 1st Interested Party relied on authorities that ex-parte orders can be challenged at trial, but the court held the substantive motion was not being determined at this stage, and even if it were, the other rules of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be imported to aid Order 53.

p. 3
03

Whether the substantive motion was filed outside the 21 days granted

Holding

Not properly before the court; the issue was raised for the first time in submissions and was not part of the preliminary objection

Reasoning

The court held that a preliminary objection must be determined on the grounds pleaded. The timeliness of the substantive notice was not among the grounds of the objection dated 7th July 2025, having first surfaced in written submissions, so it could not sustain the objection.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A court cannot sit on appeal from its own decision; challenges to its orders lie by appeal to the Court of Appeal
  • Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules is self-sustaining; other provisions of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be imported into it

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection dated 7th July 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the preliminary objection to the Ex-parte Applicant
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and Section 9 of the Law Reform Act (no specific constitutional provision invoked)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kisele v County Director, Land Adjudication & Settlement (Makueni County) & another; Maika (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8647 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8647/eng@2025-12-11

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