Black Trap Products Limited v Chief Land Registrar & Chairman National Land Commission [2017] KEHC 4228 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. 437 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION  BY BLACK  TRAP PRODUCTS  LIMITED FOR  LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDER OF MANDAMUS  DIRECTED TO THE CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR  AND THE CHAIRMAN  NATIONAL LAND  COMMISSION

BETWEEN

BLACK TRAP PRODUCTS LIMITED …….…………………….APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR…………………………1ST RESPONDENT

THE CHAIRMAN NATIONAL

LAND COMMISSION ………......................................2ND RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

1. On  7th November 2016 when  the chamber summons dated 20th September 2016 was first  brought before  the duty Judge  for consideration, the court  after hearing  the  exparte applicant’s  counsel  Miss Makanga, exparte, granted to the exparte applicant Black  Trap Products Limited leave  of court to commence  Judicial  Review  proceedings  of mandamus  to issue compelling the  Chief Land Registrar and the Chairman National Land Commission to reconstruct the Deed file  IR  55345 in respect  to LR  11895/12.

2. In the same order  for leave, and pursuant  to the  provisions  of Order  53  of the  Civil Procedure   Rules, the  court ordered  that the  substantive  notice of motion  be filed  and  served upon  the  respondent  within  14  days  from the date  thereof  together with skeletal submissions,  and  further directed  the  matter to be  mentioned  on  5th December  2016  for directions.

3. On  5th December  2016   both parties’  advocates  appeared  in court and the respondent’s counsel asked for more time to file a  response to the  motion  and the court  granted the respondent   14  more   days   to file  a  response   and  encouraged  parties to  engage  in amicable resolution of the matter  as the orders  sought  would not  adversely  affect  the respondent  in any  way.

4. By  23rd January  2017  when the  matter  came up for directions, the applicant’s  counsel  Miss Koki reported to court  that there  was no progress on negotiations hence she sought  for a  hearing  date which the court granted and further directed parties’  advocates to appear on 6th March 2017 to highlight their submissions.

5. On  6th March 2017 parties’  advocates  appeared  to be engaged in other courts and the court was compelled  to fix another  hearing date after  failing to raise counsels  even after  allocating  time   for the  hearing of the  application.

6. Came 11th May 2017 and only the applicant’s counsel attended court.  Miss  Koki  argued  her  client’s application  urging   the  court to grant orders sought in the substantive notice of  motion  dated 18th November 2016 compelling the Chief Land Registrar and Chairman National Land Commission to reconstruct  the Deed File  No.  IR 55345 in respect of LR 11895/12 which was said to be missing.

7. As I  retired to write this  judgment  for delivery today, I had to  embark  on my  first  task of  perusing the court record.  I came  across  the  sustentative notice of motion dated  18th November 2016 which  was  filed on  23rd  November  2016   pursuant  to the leave  granted  on  7th November  2017.  On  calculating  the  days  within which  the  motion  was  to  be filed  after grant  of leave, and  which  were  14 days,  the calendar  tells  me that  the  14 days ended  on  21st November 2016 and  not 23rd  November 2016.

8. In other words, the exparte  applicant  filed the  notice of motion  and served  it out  of the order stipulated time frame  within which  the  motion  was  to be filed and  served.

9. That being the case, the question that this court must determine   at a preliminary stage is whether he motion dated 18th November  2016  and filed  on  23rd November  2016   is competently before  this court, for its   determination  on the merits  thereof.

10. Order 53 Rules 1(1) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules   stipulate that:  1) No application for an order of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari shall be made unless leave therefore had been granted in accordance with this rule. 2) The leave once granted to apply for Judicial Review orders of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, the substantive motion shall be filed within 21 days of the date of leave.

11. Nonetheless, this court  having granted  leave and  a shorter period  than the  21  days, it  was  upon the applicant  to file the motion within the  time frame  granted  by the court, and  if such  time was considered to be insufficient, to seek for   its enlargement.

12. In this case, the notice of motion was filed out of time.  The Court of Appeal in United Housing Estate Limited Vs Nyali (Kenya) Limited Civil Application No.  Nairobi 84/1996stated:

“ A party who obtains an order of the court on certain specified  conditions  can only  continue  enjoying the  benefits of that order if the condition  attaching  to it  are  scrupulously  honoured  and  in the   event of  a  proved  failure  to comply with the  attached  condition, the court has  inherent   power to recall or vacate  such an order.”

13. This court   followed  the above  Court  of Appeal  decision  in many  of its  recent  decisions  including  JR  130/2016  Edna Mwende Kavindu vs The Kenya Medical Laboratory  Technicians  and  Technologists  Board  decided  on 17th January 2017 and  JR  97/2016  Linda Okello vs  Inspector  General of Police   of the National  Police Service  & Others, wherein the applicants, after obtaining leave to institute Judicial Review  proceedings, went to slumber  and  filed the  motions  out of the  stipulated  period.  The court struck out those motions for being a nullity ab initio.

14. It therefore  follows that  a precedent  has been set that  a  party cannot unilaterally choose not to comply with conditions attached to the exercise of the court’s  discretion  in his or  her favour   on the ground  that he   or she  ought to  access  justice.

15. The  exparte  applicant  who was  ably  represented  in court by counsel   had the  option of  seeking  for  enlargement  of the 14  days to the period  covering  the filing of  the notice of motion.  There  was  no such application for enlargement  of time   and  as the court does  not prosecute  cases for  parties  and   neither  can it  decide  a  case  on the  basis of   sympathy  for parties, the  applicant having  effectively  disentitled  itself  of the favourable   exercise of this court’s judicial discretion, it only has its  counsel to  blame.

16. In Wilson Osolo  v  John Ojiambo  Ochola  & Another CA  6 of  1995, the Court of Appeal  while  appreciating  that  Section 9(3) of  the Law  Reform  Act, Cap  26 Laws  of Kenya  quite  clearly stipulates  that an application for leave to apply for  an order of certiorari  cannot be   made six  months  after the date of the order or decision to be  quashed  and  that as there is no provision for extending the  time  prescribed  there under, the court was  nevertheless  of the view that:

“ It  was  a mandatory  requirement  of Order  53  Rule 3(1)  of the Civil Procedure Rules  then and it  is now  again so that  the  notice of motion  must be  file d within 21 days  of grant of such  leave. No such  notice of motion having been  apparently  filed within 21  days of  15th February  1982, there   was   no proper  application before the  superior court.  This  period of  21  days could  have been  extended  by a reasonable  period   had there  been an  application under Order  49  of the Civil  Procedure  Rules.  There was no such application save the one dated 28th April 1994.  That came  too late  in the day  in any event  and  the learned  judge erred  in even considering  the extension of time some  12  years   after   the event.”

17. In the instant case, the provisions that allow enlargement of time is Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil procedure Rules and even if such provision were inapplicable, the court would be moved to consider the application for enlargement of time, having regard to the circumstances of each case.

18. Again in John Ongeri Mariaria & 2 Others V Paul Matundura Civil Application No. Nairobi 301/2003[2004] 2 EA 163, the Court of Appeal stated:

“Legal business can no longer be handled in such sloppy and careless manner.  Some clients   must learn  at their costs   that the consequences  of careless and  leisurely approach  to work….must fall on their shoulders...whereas it is true  that the court has unfettered discretion, like all judicial  discretions must  be  exercised  upon reason not capriciously or sympathy alone…..justice must look both ways as the rules  of procedure are  meant to regulate  administration  of justice   and they are not   meant to assist  the  indolent.”

19. Failure to comply with stipulated time lines cannot be a procedural technicality curable by application of Article 159 (2)(c)of the Constitution where there is no application for enlargement of the said period.

20. As was  held by  Odunga  J in  Republic vs  Cabinet Secretary, Information, Communication & Technology  & Another Exparte  Celestine  Okuta  & Others  [2016] e KLR, and I agree, where an  applicants failed  to file their substantive  notice of motion  within the stipulated  time lines  as per the   order of leave, the learned judge stated:

“ In my view, court  orders are  serious  decisions   that  can only be exercised  based on material  placed  before the court  and cannot be ignored on the ground that they are technicalities.  In my  view, the law  is that technicalities  of procedure  ought not to automatically  lead to  termination of proceedings  and that the  court must  have the  power to save  the same   where  material  exist   before  the  court to justify  non –compliance.  However,  where  there is  none, and  where  in fact the applicant  adopts  an incorrect  position of the law to  justify  his inaction, such  omission   cannot be  exercised.”

21. It is for the above  reasons that  I hold and find the motion dated  18th  November  2016  and  filed in court  on 23rd November  2016, incompetent   and therefore  there would be no point  wasting  precious  judicial time delving into  its merits.  I proceed  to strike  it out  and  as the respondents  never raised  the issue which   this court  gathered from the record and as the court had to  as it is deemed  to know   the law and  exists  to apply the law, I make no orders  as to costs.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 16th day of May 2017.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Mr Mutahi H/B for Koki for the exparte applicant

Mr Mutiso H/b for  Masaka for the 2nd Respondent

N/A for 1st Respondent

CA: GEORGE