Limuru Road Estate Developers Limited & another v Inspector General of Police & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 10 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7286 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 Applicants are entitled to the judicial review orders of prohibition and mandamus
- 2.Who is entitled to costs of this application
Key legal issues
#Whether judicial review orders of prohibition and mandamus were merited against police deployment on private land
The Respondents acted ultra vires by deploying police to guard private property whose ownership had been conclusively determined by competent courts; prohibition and mandamus were granted
The court found the ownership of the suit parcels had been conclusively determined in prior litigation with no appeal, and the 2nd Respondent had exhausted legal avenues. Police deployment to guard the land and block development, without invitation by the owner, exceeded lawful authority. Judicial review targets the decision-making process, and such ultra vires action attracted intervention through prohibition and mandamus.
Scope of mandamus
Mandamus compels performance of a public duty imposed by statute where the duty-bearer fails or refuses to perform it
Relying on Kenya National Examination Council v Republic Ex Parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge, the court reiterated that mandamus commands performance of statutory public duties and cannot be used to quash what has already been done or to dictate the mode of performing a discretionary duty. Here the removal of improperly deployed police officers was treated as a public duty enforceable by mandamus.
Legal principles established
#- Public authorities and officials must act within the law without exceeding their authority; acting beyond it is ultra vires and attracts judicial review intervention
- Police cannot guard private property against the wishes of the adjudged owner where ownership has been determined by a competent court
Court orders
#- 1.Order of prohibition prohibiting the Respondents, their agents, servants or employees from entering, remaining, guarding Nakuru Municipality Block 20/288 (Now Block 20/308-337) and Block 20/289 and from interfering with the 1st Applicant's peaceful and quiet possession
- 2.Order of prohibition prohibiting the 1st Respondent from investigating or inquiring into the allegation of obtaining land registration by false pretense contrary to section 320(a) of the Penal Code, ownership having been determined by a competent court
- 3.Order of mandamus compelling the 1st Respondent to remove the police officers deployed to guard the suit parcels and to keep peace while the 1st Applicant develops them without interference
- 4.Costs of the application to the Applicants
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction (orders of prohibition and mandamus); Articles 40 and 47 of the Constitution invoked
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.
That an order of Mandamus is hereby issued compelling the 1st Respondent to remove the Police Oficers that have been deployed to guard all those parcels of land known as Nakuru Municipality Block 20/288 (Now Nakuru Municipality Block 20/308-337) and Nakuru Municipality Block 20/289
That an order of prohibition is hereby issued prohibiting the Respondents, their agents, servants or employees from entering, remaining, guarding all those parcels of land known as Nakuru Municipality Block 20/288 (Now Nakuru Municipality Block 20/308-337) and Nakuru Municipality Block 20/289
Why would the Police guard private property without being invited by the owners of the suit parcels of land? On whose behalf are they acting and taking instructions?
Judicial review is concerned with the decision making process, not with the merits of the decision itself.
Costs of the application to the Applicants.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the full names of the parties, the case number, or the neutral citation; the application is identified only by its date
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Limuru Road Estate Developers Limited & another v Inspector General of Police & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 10 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7286 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 14th December 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7286/eng@2025-10-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.