Chimwaga & 4 others v Land Registrar Kwale County & another; National Land Commission & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5838 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kwale refused to pause a judicial review case, confirming that interested parties cannot control litigation they did not start.
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 3rd Interested Party/Applicant has met the conditions necessary for the grant of stay of proceedings
- 2.Who bears the costs of the application?
Key legal issues
#Whether the conditions for a stay of proceedings were met
The application for stay failed because no prima facie case or sufficient cause was established; the land petition and the judicial review are distinct matters that stand independently
The court applied the stay test analogous to Order 42 Rule 6: a prima facie arguable case and sufficient cause in the interest of justice. Comparing the pleadings, the judicial review challenges the Land Registrar's cancellation of the Applicants' leases via Gazette Notice No 10517 on process grounds (ultra vires, procedural unfairness), while the petition seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on ownership of parcel 1352 only. The suits thus raise substantially different issues between them, and the JR court is confined to process, so parallel litigation would not produce embarrassing conflicting decisions.
Whether an interested party can seek a stay of proceedings
An interested party is not a main party, holds no direct claim in the suit, and lacks standing to alter or control the course of the proceedings by seeking a stay
Relying on Black's Law Dictionary and the Marigat Group Ranch and Leboo authorities, the court held that an interested party exists only to assist the court and must not disguise substantive claims. Ashbrook, joined four months after institution as an interested party, was contesting ownership rather than the Registrar's decision-making process, which is the domain of the plaintiffs/defendants. It therefore could not invoke the court's discretion to halt the judicial review.
Who bears the costs of the application
The Applicants (1st to 5th) are entitled to costs since the 3rd Interested Party did not succeed
Under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act costs follow the event. Having failed on both limbs of the stay test, the 3rd Interested Party could not shift costs to the successful Applicants. The court therefore awarded costs of the Notice of Motion dated 17th January 2025 to the 1st to 5th Applicants jointly and severally.
Legal principles established
#- The power to grant a stay of proceedings is discretionary and requires sufficient cause: a prima facie arguable case and sufficient cause that it is in the interest of justice to grant the orders
- An interested party is not a main party and cannot purport to stop proceedings or agitate its own rights over the subject matter of a suit
- Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits or issues of ownership; a judicial review court does not determine title to land
Court orders
#- 1.That the Notice of Motion application dated 17th January 2025 be and is hereby found to lack merit thus dismissed.
- 2.That to be mentioned on 16th July, 2025 for further direction.
- 3.That the Interested Parties granted 14 days to fully comply.
- 4.That the costs of the application awarded to the 1st to 5th Applicants jointly and severally.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 (Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 6 and 63(e)); Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Stay of proceedings in Judicial Review Case No E003 of 2024 pending hearing and determination of Kwale ELC Land Petition No E004 of 2024
No prima facie case established; the land petition and the judicial review proceedings are distinct and stand on their own feet; the 3rd Interested Party, being only an interested party and not a main party, cannot seek to stop the proceedings
Costs of the application to the 3rd Interested Party
The 3rd Interested Party did not succeed in establishing its case; costs follow the event under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
Costs
Costs of the application awarded to the 1st to 5th Applicants jointly and severally.
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 court is not convinced that there exists “a prima facie case” has been established by the 3rd Interested Party to warrant the orders for stay of proceedings of the matters.
the land Petition and the judicial review proceedings are extremely distinct and stand out on their own feet. They are not similar at all.
The 3rd Interested Party cannot purport to stop proceedings given that it is not a main party in the instant suit.
a. That the Notice of Motion application dated 17th January 2025 be and is hereby found to lack merit thus dismissed.
That the costs of the application awarded to the 1st to 5th Applicants jointly and severally.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment labels the moving party inconsistently as both 'Applicant' and '3rd Interested Party/Applicant' interchangeably
The names of the Applicants are listed with slight variation in spelling between paragraphs (e.g. 'Chimwaga' and 'Chimwanga')
The paragraph numbering in the Conclusion jumps from paragraph 47 to 49 with no paragraph 48
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chimwaga & 4 others v Land Registrar Kwale County & another; National Land Commission & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5838 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review Case No E003 of 2024 (formerly Kwale ELC JR No E003 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5838/eng@2025-07-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.