Thuranira v Sub-County Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer, Buuri Sub-County & 2 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5051 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court struck out a landowner's challenge to a land adjudication decision because he filed it over five years late, missing a strict six-month deadline.
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 judicial review motion is statute-barred under the Law Reform Act
- 2.Whether a proper case has been made to warrant issuance of an order of certiorari
Key legal issues
#Whether the judicial review motion is statute-barred under the Law Reform Act
Yes; the leave application was filed more than five years after the decision of 23/7/2020, far outside the six-month period in Section 9(3), so the court lacked jurisdiction
Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act bars grant of leave for certiorari more than six months after the impugned decision. Court of Appeal authority (Ako v Special District Commission; Wilson Osolo) holds the prohibition absolute and not extendable under the Civil Procedure Rules. Judicial review under the Act is initiated by filing the leave application, which here occurred on 9/10/2025, over five years after the decision. Having elected that route, the applicant was bound by its limitation.
Whether a proper case has been made for an order of certiorari
Not determined; the court declined to reach the merits given want of jurisdiction
Applying the Owners of Motor Vessel Lillian 'S' principle, once jurisdiction is absent the court must down its tools and cannot proceed to the second, merit-based question. The court expressly refrained from considering whether certiorari was warranted on the merits.
Legal principles established
#- Applications for leave to apply for certiorari under the Law Reform Act must be made within six months of the impugned decision, and the period cannot be extended
- Where a party elects judicial review under Order 53 rather than a constitutional petition, the court is confined to process, not merits
Court orders
#- 1.The motion dated 22/10/2025 struck out for being statute-barred under Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act
- 2.The ex-parte applicant to 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 and Order 53 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Order of certiorari quashing the decision in AR Objection No 5331 rendered on 23/7/2020
The motion was filed more than six months after the impugned decision, outside the statutory limitation in Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act, leaving the court without jurisdiction
Costs
The ex-parte applicant shall bear costs of the suit, in line with Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
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 motion under consideration is hereby struck out for being statute-barred under Section 9 (3) of the Law Reform Act.
In line with the general principle in Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, the ex-parte applicant shall bear costs of the suit.
As things stand, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain a Sections 8 and 9 (of the Law Reform Act) judicial review motion outside the statutory period of six months.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: motion dated 22/10/2025 but initiating chamber summons stated as dated 8/10/2025 and filed 9/10/2025, i.e. before the motion's date
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Thuranira v Sub-County Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer, Buuri Sub-County & 2 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5051 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCEP (JR) CASE NO. E001 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5051/eng@2026-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.