Kisele v County Director of Land Adjudication & Settlement (Makueni County) & another; Kivindo & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E012 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2491 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court dismissed a late land judicial review bid, confirming the six-month deadline to quash decisions is absolute, with no exceptions.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Applicant is legally entitled to leave of the court to commence judicial review proceedings against the 2nd Respondent's decision dated 23rd April, 2025.
Key legal issues
#Whether the court has discretion to grant leave for judicial review out of time
It does not; the six-month limitation in section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 Rule 2 is mandatory and an application outside it is a nullity.
The court applied section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 Rule 2, holding that the statutory period cannot be enlarged under inherent jurisdiction or subsidiary legislation. It relied on Odinga v Nairobi City Council, where the proviso in Order 53 Rule 2 allowing extension for 'good reason' was held ultra vires section 9(2) of the Law Reform Act, and on Mativo J's decision in Sabiha Kassamia that discretion does not apply where the statute is clear.
Legal principles established
#- The six-month statutory limitation for applying for leave to seek certiorari is mandatory and cannot be enlarged by the court's inherent jurisdiction or by subsidiary legislation.
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons dated 6th November, 2025 is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 53 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act
Relief refused
#Leave to file judicial review proceedings for certiorari out of time
The application was filed approximately six months and twenty-one days after the impugned decision, beyond the mandatory six-month statutory limitation under section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 Rule 2.
Leave to operate as a stay of further dealings on Plot Nos. 79 and 132
This relief was consequential on the grant of leave, which was refused.
Costs
No orders as to costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
A statutory time limitation cannot be enlarged under the inherent jurisdiction of this court or under subsidiary legislation such as the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
the instant application for leave to apply for judicial review orders of certiorari as filed by the Applicant is a nullity for non-compliance with mandatory statutory time limitations. This court has no jurisdiction to grant the same.
Accordingly, the Chamber Summons dated 6th November, 2025 is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kisele v County Director of Land Adjudication & Settlement (Makueni County) & another; Kivindo & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E012 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2491 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons dated 6th November, 2025 (Judicial Review). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2491/eng@2026-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.