Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedBungoma Chief Magistrate Civil Case No. 85 of 2018 (pending appeal; Notice of Motion dated 9th December 2021)· [2021] KEELC 121 (KLR)

Florence Namachitu & another v Doris Wanyama [2021] KEELC 121 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
20 December 2021
1,153 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court in Bungoma dismissed an auctioneer's attempt to use judicial review to challenge a court hearing date, confirming registry listings cannot be reviewed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by Boaz N. Olao J of the High Court at Bungoma, delivered on 20th December 2021, determines a Notice of Motion dated 9th December 2021 by Samson Okall T/A Damsey Auctioneer, an auctioneer executing a decree in Bungoma Chief Magistrate Civil Case No. 85 of 2018. In that suit, Hon S. O. Mogute (Principal Magistrate) had on 15th May 2020 found for the plaintiff, Doris Wanyama, and ordered the eviction of the defendants, Florence Namachitu and Ronald Kerre, from land parcel East Bukusu/South Kanduyi/8863. Facing resistance during execution, the auctioneer applied on 15th November 2021 for police security, but the trial Magistrate directed that the diary was full and the application be fixed for hearing in early February 2022. Aggrieved, the auctioneer moved the High Court purportedly by judicial review, seeking to set aside that direction and to have the application heard on a priority basis. The Court held that judicial review applications are governed by Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules and must be commenced by an application for leave, which the Applicant had not done. It further held that no ruling was delivered on 24th November 2021 capable of being set aside, only a registry listing order, and that the act of listing a matter for hearing cannot be remedied by judicial review. The motion was dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Proper procedure for judicial review applications

Holding

The application was fatally defective as it was not brought by way of an application for leave under Order 53

Reasoning

The Court noted that judicial review proceedings are governed by Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules and must be commenced by an application for leave. The Applicant had instead invoked Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A and 80 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which is not a permissible route for judicial review. The Court therefore held the application could not stand in the form presented.

p. 2
02

Amenability of registry listing decisions to judicial review

Holding

Decisions on listing of matters for hearing are not justiciable through judicial review

Reasoning

The Court observed that it was unclear whether the Applicant sought certiorari, prohibition or mandamus in respect of the fixing of a hearing date. It held that the listing of a matter by the Registry for hearing or mention is an administrative court function that cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be remedied through judicial review, as that would stretch the scope of judicial review too far.

p. 2
03

Existence of a quashable decision

Holding

No ruling existed on 24th November 2021 that the Court could set aside

Reasoning

The Applicant sought to set aside an alleged ruling of 24th November 2021. The Court examined the trial court record and found that the only order made on that date was a registry order fixing the hearing of the application dated 15th November 2021 for 8th December 2021 with notice to serve. There being no substantive ruling, there was nothing to set aside.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A judicial review application must be commenced by an application for leave under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules and cannot be brought in any other manner
  • The act of listing a matter by the Registry for hearing or mention is not amenable to judicial review

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 9th December 2021 was dismissed with no orders as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Applicant invoked Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A and 80 of the Civil Procedure Rules purporting to bring a judicial review application

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Florence Namachitu & another v Doris Wanyama [2021] KEELC 121 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Bungoma Chief Magistrate Civil Case No. 85 of 2018 (pending appeal; Notice of Motion dated 9th December 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/121/eng@2021-12-20

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.