In the Matter of an Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review by the Exparte Applicants
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court struck out a judicial review case filed just one day late, confirming the 21-day filing deadline is strictly mandatory.
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 court is seized of a competent judicial review motion that would form the basis of a judicial review hearing, given that the substantive motion was filed after the expiry of the 21-day period and after the leave had lapsed
Key legal issues
#Whether a substantive judicial review motion filed one day after expiry of the 21-day period under Order 53 rule 3(1), and after lapse of the leave, is competent
The motion was fatally defective for want of leave and was struck out
Order 53 rule 3(1) requires the substantive motion to be filed within twenty-one days of leave. The leave was granted on 9/2/2026 and expired on 2/3/2026; the motion was uploaded on 4/3/2026. The court held that upon expiry of the 21 days the leave lapsed by operation of the leave order itself, and without live leave there was nothing upon which the motion could be anchored. The delay could not be cured under Article 159(2) absent an extension application.
Legal principles established
#- Filing the substantive notice of motion within twenty-one days from the date of grant of leave under Order 53 rule 3(1) is a mandatory requirement
- A judicial review motion under Order 53 cannot be competent unless leave is in place at the time of filing; where leave lapses for non-compliance with the 21-day timeline, the motion is fatally defective
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 4/3/2026 is struck out for want of leave
- 2.The exparte applicants shall bear costs of this judicial review cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Continuation of the substantive judicial review motion (dated 4/3/2026) as a competent cause
The 21-day period for filing the substantive motion expired on 2/3/2026, the leave lapsed, and the motion filed on 4/3/2026 had no leave to anchor it
Costs
The exparte applicants shall bear costs of this judicial review cause
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.
The result is that the Notice of Motion dated 4/3/2026 is fatally defective for want of leave. Consequently, the same is hereby struck out.
The general principle on costs is that costs follow the event. There is no proper ground to warrant a departure from the general principle. Consequently, the exparte applicants shall bear costs of this judicial review cause.
It was a mandatory requirement of Order 53 rule 3(1) of Civil Procedure Rules then (and it is now again so) that the notice of motion must be filed within 21 days of grant of such leave.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "In the Matter of an Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review by the Exparte Applicants", Case Analysis (2026). Judicial Review Cause re: Chamber Summons dated 10/12/2025 (substantive Notice of Motion dated 4/3/2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2791/eng@2026-04-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.