Republic v Multi-Sectoral Committee on Unsafe Structures & 4 others; Blue Silk Holdings Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Miscellaneous Civil Application 174 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 6138 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court quashed a demolition notice because the landowner wasn't properly notified three months in advance, but left ownership questions for a separate lawsuit.
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 Ex Parte Applicant has made a case for grant of the judicial review orders sought (certiorari, prohibition and declaration)
Key legal issues
#Whether the impugned circular of 25th September 2018 was procedurally valid
The circular was procedurally defective and was quashed as it relates to the suit property, for non-compliance with sections 152C and 152E of the Land Act and reliance on a repealed law
The court found the Ex parte Applicant was neither properly involved in the proceedings culminating in the circular nor properly served. The Land Act requires eviction notices to be issued three months in advance, which was not done. The circular was also issued under the repealed Wayleaves Act, rendering it null and void. The mode of informing the Applicant of the eviction offended the rules of natural justice and was unreasonable, warranting certiorari limited to the suit property.
Whether judicial review is the proper forum for a declaration of title and constitutional claims under Articles 40 and 47(1)
No; questions of title validity must be raised in a substantive civil suit, not judicial review proceedings
The court, applying the Supreme Court's pronouncement that judicial review concerns the decision-making process rather than merits, held that the Applicant's claims as to indefeasibility of title and constitutional rights under Articles 40 and 47(1) fall outside judicial review. The proper remedy is a substantive suit where evidence can be tested fully; the court therefore declined to grant the declaration or address the constitutional claims.
Whether the legality of the 1st Respondent can be challenged in judicial review
No; the legality of the 1st Respondent as a body must be challenged in a substantive suit
The Applicant argued the 1st Respondent is an illegal body. The court held that judicial review examines the process leading to a decision, not the legality of the issuing body as such; that question requires a substantive suit. The court nonetheless found the circular itself defective on process grounds and quashed it as it related to the suit property.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review targets the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision; a notice of eviction must comply with section 152C and 152E of the Land Act, requiring notice three months in advance
- Disputes over ownership of land cannot be determined in judicial review proceedings on affidavit evidence
Court orders
#- 1.An Order of Certiorari to quash the 1st Respondent's circular of 25th September 2018 as it relates to LR No. 9093 only
- 2.Dismissal of prayers (b) and (c) seeking prohibition and a declaration of ownership
- 3.Ex Parte Applicant awarded half of the costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court (Environment and Land Court) under leave granted, Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act
- Consolidated with
- ELC Nairobi JR 175 of 2018, JR 176 of 2018
Relief refused
#Order of prohibition against the Respondents interfering with LR No. 9093
The order was framed in overly wide terms and no determination was made that the Applicant is the lawful owner; ownership disputes cannot be determined in judicial review by affidavit evidence
Declaration that the Applicant is the legal and beneficial owner of LR No. 9093
Title validation falls outside judicial review; a substantive civil suit is the proper forum
Costs
Ex Parte Applicant awarded half of the costs of the suit
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.
I will proceed to issue an Order of Certiorari to quash the 1st Respondent's circular of 25th September, 2018 as it relates to LR No. 9093 only.
the impugned Circular of 25th September, 2018 in respect to eviction of the Ex parte Applicant from the suit property should hence be quashed as relates to the suit property only.
the said Circular or notice contravenes the provisions of section 152 (C) and (E) of the Land Act, which stipulates that notices for eviction should be issued three (3) months in advance.
I note the Circular was also issued under the Wayleaves Act, which is a repealed law and this indeed makes the said notice null and void.
I award the Ex parte Applicant half of the costs of this suit.
I find the instant Notice of Motion application only partially successful as relates to prayer (a) seeking an Order of Certiorari, but not to the Others prayers (b) and (c) for prohibition and declaration, which prayers I will proceed to dismiss.
Issues in the judgment
#The citation for Republic v Egerton University Exparte Robert Kipkemoi Koskey is printed as '[206] eKLR', apparently a typographical error for a year
The applicant's party name and some respondents are not fully identified in the judgment text; the 3rd and 5th Respondents are not individually named in the excerpt provided
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Multi-Sectoral Committee on Unsafe Structures & 4 others; Blue Silk Holdings Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Miscellaneous Civil Application 174 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 6138 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nairobi ELC Misc. No. 173 of 2018 (Judicial Review). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6138/eng@2025-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.