Republic v Deputy Commissioner, Makueni Sub County & 3 others; Mulwa (Ex parte Applicant); Ngui (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 5155 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court confirmed the six-month deadline to file judicial review cases in Kenya cannot be extended, so acting promptly after an adverse decision is essential.
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 Exparte Applicant ought to be given extension of time
Key legal issues
#Whether the court has jurisdiction to extend time for filing judicial review proceedings
No - the six-month limit for certiorari under section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act, echoed in Order 53 Rule 2, cannot be extended; extension provisions applicable to the Civil Procedure Rules cannot be availed of for time limited by statute.
The court held that judicial review is a special jurisdiction governed substantively by the Law Reform Act and procedurally by Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The six-month limitation in section 9(3) for certiorari cannot be enlarged by importing Civil Procedure Act provisions or Order 49. The applicant, being out of time since the Minister's decision of 5th September 2022, could not benefit from the persuasive authorities permitting extension where sufficient cause is shown.
Whether the applicant's delay was excusable even if an extension power existed
No - the applicant did nothing to pursue judicial review even under the Fair Administrative Actions Act after learning of the decision, instead filing a suit in the Chief Magistrate's Court.
The Minister's decision was delivered on 5th September 2022. Although the applicant claimed awareness only in 2023, he thereafter filed a suit in the Chief Magistrate's Court, which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, rather than moving promptly for judicial review. The court found that even under the Fair Administrative Actions Act, which requires no leave, the applicant had not acted, so no extension would have been granted in any event.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review proceedings are special in nature governed by the Law Reform Act and Order 53; no other provisions may be imported to extend time limits set by statute
Court orders
#- 1.Application for extension of time to file judicial review proceedings dismissed with costs to the Interested Party
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Leave to bring judicial review proceedings out of time (extension of time)
Judicial review jurisdiction is special and governed exclusively by the Law Reform Act and Order 53; there is no power to extend time, and in any event the applicant did not act promptly even after learning of the decision
Costs
Dismissed with costs to the Interested Party
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.
I find that the Exparte Applicant's application is devoid of merit. I proceed to dismiss the same with costs to the Interested Party.
Judicial Review proceedings have special jurisdiction which is governed by the Law Reform Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules. One cannot import any other other provisions to replace or supplement the same.
Whilst the time limited for doing something under the Civil Procedure Rules can be extended by an application under Order 49 of the Civil Procedure Rules that procedure cannot be availed of for the extension of time limited by statute, in this case the Law Reform Act.
Issues in the judgment
#The court appears to treat Republic v Chairman Amagoro Land Disputes Tribunal (a Maraga JA Court of Appeal decision quoted with 'We') as binding while calling the Amuti and Kurui decisions 'persuasive', but the attribution of authorities to parties versus court is not explicit in the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Deputy Commissioner, Makueni Sub County & 3 others; Mulwa (Ex parte Applicant); Ngui (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 5155 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 18th December, 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5155/eng@2025-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.