Kisele v County Director, Land Adjudication & Settlement (Makueni County) & another; Maika (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8647 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court refused to undo its own order extending time for a judicial review case, ruling only the Court of Appeal can review such decisions.
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 preliminary objection dated 7th July 2025 should be allowed, namely whether the court had jurisdiction to extend time for filing judicial review proceedings beyond the six-month statutory period and whether the orders of 18th March 2025 should be set aside
Key legal issues
#Whether the court could revisit its own order of 18th March 2025 extending time
It could not; whether it had jurisdiction to extend time is determinable only by the Court of Appeal on appeal
The court noted that it had already granted extension of time on 18th March 2025 unopposed. The question of whether it possessed jurisdiction to do so cannot be re-opened by the same court through a preliminary objection, as that would amount to sitting on appeal from its own decision, which is impermissible.
Whether the setting-aside submissions were properly before the court
They were misplaced because the substantive motion was not the subject of the preliminary objection and Order 53 cannot be supplemented by other Civil Procedure provisions
The 1st Interested Party relied on authorities that ex-parte orders can be challenged at trial, but the court held the substantive motion was not being determined at this stage, and even if it were, the other rules of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be imported to aid Order 53.
Whether the substantive motion was filed outside the 21 days granted
Not properly before the court; the issue was raised for the first time in submissions and was not part of the preliminary objection
The court held that a preliminary objection must be determined on the grounds pleaded. The timeliness of the substantive notice was not among the grounds of the objection dated 7th July 2025, having first surfaced in written submissions, so it could not sustain the objection.
Legal principles established
#- A court cannot sit on appeal from its own decision; challenges to its orders lie by appeal to the Court of Appeal
- Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules is self-sustaining; other provisions of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be imported into it
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection dated 7th July 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the preliminary objection to the Ex-parte Applicant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and Section 9 of the Law Reform Act (no specific constitutional provision invoked)
Relief refused
#Setting aside the orders of 18th March 2025 granting extension of time
The court cannot sit on appeal from its own decision; jurisdiction of the court is a matter for the Court of Appeal
Declaration that the court lacked jurisdiction to extend time under Order 53 Rule 2 and Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act
Order 53 is self-sustaining and other provisions cannot be imported into it
Costs
Costs of the preliminary objection to the Ex-parte Applicant
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.
The only court which an address that issue is the Court of Appeal by way of appeal. This court cannot purport to sit on appeal from its own decision under the guise of setting aside its orders of 18th March, 2025.
Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules is self-sustaining. One cannot import the other provisions of the Civil Procedure Act to apply to it.
I therefore find that the preliminary objection is devoid of merit. The same is dismissed with costs to the Ex-parte Applicant. It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The names of the Ex-parte Applicant and the Interested Parties, and the case number, are not disclosed in the ruling; parties are referred to only by role
Submissions state the Ex-parte Applicant contends the court has no jurisdiction to extend time, but this contradicts the Ex-parte Applicant's own position elsewhere, which defends the extension and contends the Interested Party should have appealed
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kisele v County Director, Land Adjudication & Settlement (Makueni County) & another; Maika (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8647 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8647/eng@2025-12-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.