Republic & another v Land Control Board Mukaa Subcounty & another; Deputy County Commissioner Mukaa Subcounty (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case Judicial Review Application E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4999 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused to force a Land Control Board to approve a land transfer, ruling applicants must first use the Land Control Act's appeal process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether mandamus lies to compel the Land Control Board to grant land control consent
No - the Board's power to grant or refuse consent under section 8 of the Land Control Act is discretionary, and the Applicant has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal which he did not exhaust; mandamus also cannot compel action contrary to the statute where litigation over the properties is pending.
Section 8 of the Land Control Act gives the Board discretion to grant or refuse consent. A refused applicant may appeal to the Provincial Land Control Appeals Board and further to the Central Land Control Appeal Board, whose decision is final. The Applicant bypassed these mechanisms and came by judicial review. Mandamus does not lie for discretionary duties, where a more appropriate remedy exists, or to compel action contrary to statute.
Whether the Applicant's reliance on orders in Judicial Review No. E002 of 2021 (Laban Nduva Masai v Land Control Board Mukaa Subcounty & 2 others) assisting him was well founded
No - the record of that matter shows no orders of 7th April 2021 or 25th February 2021 compelling the Interested Party to grant consent; only leave to file a substantive motion was granted, which was never prosecuted.
The Applicant alleged prior orders compelling consent in respect of Machakos/Ulu/450, 451 and 28, of which the suit parcels are subdivisions. The court examined the record and found that no such orders were issued; the Applicant in that cause had only been granted leave to file a substantive motion which was never prosecuted and had been spent. The factual premise of the Applicant's claim therefore failed.
Legal principles established
#- An order of mandamus cannot issue where the duty sought to be compelled is discretionary or where an adequate alternative remedy exists
- Mandamus cannot compel a statutory body to act contrary to the provisions of the statute governing it
- A party refused land control consent must exhaust the appeal mechanisms under the Land Control Act (Provincial and Central Land Control Appeals Boards) before resorting to judicial review
Court orders
#- 1.The Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 17th October, 2024 seeking an order of mandamus is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondents and the Interested Party
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules (order of mandamus against a Land Control Board)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic & another v Land Control Board Mukaa Subcounty & another; Deputy County Commissioner Mukaa Subcounty (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case Judicial Review Application E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4999 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review (Mandamus) application dated 17th October, 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4999/eng@2025-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.