SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Republic v Deputy County Commissioner, Makueni & 3 others; Matolo (Exparte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E021 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 1371 (KLR) (6 March 2024) (Judgment)

[2024] KEELC 1371 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
1371
Citation
[2024] KEELC 1371 (KLR)
Decided
6 March 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeJudicial ReviewPostureEx parte application for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamusCoramTW MURIGI
Holding

The application is dismissed as the appeal to the Minister was not led out of time and the Ex-parte Applicant has not made out a case for the grant of judicial review orders.

Facts

The Ex-parte Applicant, Robert Muli Matolo, seeks to quash a decision of the Deputy County Commissioner, Makueni, over land parcel No. 1000 Makueni/Kivani, arguing that he was not given a fair hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the Appeal to the Minister was led out of time.
  2. Whether the Applicant has made out a case for the grant of judicial review orders.

Reasoning

The Court of Appeal has set the parameters of Judicial Review proceedings, emphasizing the need to review the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself. The application for certiorari and prohibition is dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Law Reform Act
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Land Adjudication Act
Cases cited (3)
  • Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council and Others (2008)
  • Municipal Council of Mombasa v Republic & Umoja Consultants Ltd (2001)
  • Republic v Kenya Revenue Authority Exparte Yaya Towers Limited (2008)
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case