Martine v County Public Service Board, Kajiado County Government & 3 others (Miscellaneous Cause E003 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2733 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled it cannot extend the strict 21-day deadline for filing a judicial review case, so a challenge to Kajiado County hirings collapsed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court can enlarge the 21-day period for filing a substantive judicial review motion under Order 53(3)(1)
The court has no jurisdiction to extend the timelines for filing the substantive judicial review application where proceedings are anchored exclusively on the Law Reform Act and Order 53
Order 53(3)(1), promulgated under section 9 of the Law Reform Act, requires the substantive motion to be filed within 21 days of leave, and neither the Act nor Order 53 provides for enlargement. Judicial review proceedings are sui generis, so provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules such as Order 50 rule 6 cannot be invoked. The 21-day period is a reasonable limitation on access to justice ensuring the motion is filed while circumstances are still obtaining. Decisions permitting extension, like Amuti, rested on article 47 and the Fair Administrative Action Act, which do not apply here.
Whether the Applicant's explanation of wrong diarization justified an extension even if jurisdiction existed
The explanation was unsupported and amounted to counsel's negligence, justifying no extension
The associate who allegedly wrongly diarized the file did not swear an affidavit confirming the assertion, and no office diary excerpts were exhibited. Counsel knew the 21-day period was running when the file was handed over, so wrong diarization could not explain the inaction. The court concluded the only plausible explanation was counsel's negligence, which does not justify extension.
Legal principles established
#- A 21-day limitation for filing a substantive judicial review motion under Order 53(3)(1) is not an unreasonable limitation on access to justice
- Judicial review proceedings anchored solely on the Law Reform Act and Order 53, and not on article 47 and the Fair Administrative Action Act, are subject to the strictures of leave and timelines under Order 53
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 16th February 2023 is dismissed with costs to the 1st to 3rd Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act as read with Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules (judicial review over county recruitment process)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Martine v County Public Service Board, Kajiado County Government & 3 others (Miscellaneous Cause E003 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2733 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2733/eng@2023-11-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.