Republic v The Chairman Matungu L. D. Tribunal

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA Miscellaneous Civil Application 5 of 2008 IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW AND IN THE MATTER OF L.R. N.WANGA/INDANGALASIA/406 & 808 IN THE MATTER OF MATUNGU LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL CASE NO. MTG/13/2008 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE KAKAMEGA CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT MISC. AWARD NO.166 OF 2008 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ………………………………………………………….. APPLICANT VERSUS THE CHAIRMAN MATUNGU L. D. TRIBUNAL ….. RESPONDENT AND 1. HENDRICA ONYANGO 2. RASMO ODONGOA ……………….………… INTERESTED PARTIES AND 1. MUCHELULE KUTUNDU 2. HEZRON O. WESONGA ………………………………….. APPLICANTS RULING On 10th November, 2008 the applicants were granted leave to file their substantive application for Judicial Review within 21 days. The application was filed on 17th December, 2008. On the same date, 17th December, 2008 the applicant filed an application seeking leave of the court to extend time to file the substantive application. The Interested parties filed a notice of preliminary objection on 15th January, 2009. Mr. Wanyama, counsel for the interested parties submitted that the notice of motion was filed out of time. He further submitted that there are no proceedings or order to be quashed as no proceedings are annexed to the application. Mr. Elung’ata, counsel for the applicants opposed the preliminary objection and submitted that the application that was to be heard was the one seeking leave to extend time and not the substantive motion for Judicial Review. I do find that the issues raised in the preliminary objection can be raised during the hearing of both the application for extension of time or the substantive motion. The points raised in the preliminary objection relates mainly to the substantive motion that was not fixed for hearing. The interested parties should raise the points indicated in their preliminary objection

page 1 of 2