Kiburi v Deputy County Commissioner, Buuri East Sub-County; Kiunga & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E046 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 116 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Meru court struck out a late judicial review application, confirming Kenyan courts cannot extend the six-month deadline for judicial review cases.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this court has jurisdiction to enlarge limitation period in the circumstances of the present application
- 2.Whether the application satisfies the general criteria on grant of leave
Key legal issues
#Whether the court can extend the statutory six-month period under Section 9 of the Law Reform Act
The court lacks jurisdiction to enlarge the limitation period; the prohibition is absolute
Relying on the Court of Appeal in Ako v Special District Commissioner and Wilson Osolo v John Ojiambo Ochola, the court held that when a party elects the judicial review route under the Law Reform Act, proceedings must be initiated within the prescribed six months because the Act contains no power of extension, and Civil Procedure Rules provisions on enlargement of time cannot extend a statutory limitation period. Following the Lillian S principle, absent jurisdiction the court downed its tools.
Source and limits of judicial jurisdiction
Jurisdiction flows only from the Constitution or legislation and cannot be assumed
The court invoked the Supreme Court's decision in Samuel Kamau Macharia v Kenya Commercial Bank to emphasise that a court can only exercise jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution or written law, and cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that conferred by law. Since the Law Reform Act confers no extension power, the application necessarily failed.
Legal principles established
#- The Law Reform Act does not confer jurisdiction on courts to enlarge the six-month limitation period for judicial review applications
Court orders
#- 1.The chamber summons dated 17/9/2025 is struck out for lack of jurisdiction
- 2.The applicant shall bear costs of the suit
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; Sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 22, 23, 47 and 159 of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Order enlarging time to apply for judicial review orders of certiorari against the Minister's decision of 5/5/2023
The court has no jurisdiction to enlarge the limitation period prescribed under Sections 9(2) and 9(3) of the Law Reform Act
Costs
The applicant shall bear costs of the suit
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 result is that the chamber summons dated 17/9/2025 is struck out for lack of jurisdiction. The applicant shall bear costs of the suit.
In the absence of jurisdiction, the court will down its tools in tandem with the principle in Owners of Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] eKLR.
when a party elects to seek judicial review remedy under the Law Reform Act, he must strictly initiate the proceedings within the period prescribed by the Act because there is no jurisdiction to enlarge the limitation period prescribed by the Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiburi v Deputy County Commissioner, Buuri East Sub-County; Kiunga & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E046 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 116 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber summons dated 17/9/2025 (Meru ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/116/eng@2026-01-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.