JOSEPH NGURE GATHUMBI V MWEA DIVISION LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL & 2 OTHERS [2013] KEELRC 264 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court dismissed a landowner's bid to block a completed land subdivision because prohibition can only stop future decisions, not reverse ones already made.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Availability of prohibition where the impugned act is complete
Prohibition is unavailable and inefficacious where the decision or act sought to be prohibited has already been made; the completed subdivision and registration of 9th September 2007 could not be prohibited by a motion filed in December 2007
The applicant's own affidavit showed the original parcel Mwerua/Kagio/2907 had been subdivided into three portions with titles issued on 9th September 2007, months before the motion. Citing Black's Law Dictionary and the Court of Appeal in Commissioner of Lands v Coastal Aquaculture and Kenya National Examination Council v Republic, the court held prohibition arrests future or incomplete proceedings and cannot quash an already-made decision. Certiorari had already been ruled out in the preliminary objection ruling of 17th January 2013.
Legal principles established
#- Prohibition is a prospective remedy and cannot be used to undo a decision that has already been made
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 10th December 2007 is dismissed with no order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- High Court supervisory/judicial review jurisdiction (order of prohibition)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "JOSEPH NGURE GATHUMBI V MWEA DIVISION LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL & 2 OTHERS [2013] KEELRC 264 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Judicial Review Application - Notice of Motion dated 10th December 2007. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/264/eng@2013-05-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.