Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedChamber Summons dated 3rd October 2025 (Judicial Review)

Republic v Director of Criminal Investigations (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7635 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
3 November 2025
GOG M A Ongondo
727 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court in Kapsabet allowed a property owner to challenge a land restriction months after the deadline, freezing the restriction while her case proceeds.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Ex parte Applicant, Ziporah Jebichii Seroney, moved the court by chamber summons dated 3rd October 2025 seeking enlargement of time to file judicial review proceedings and leave to apply for orders of certiorari to quash the Respondent's decision to place an indefinite restriction on her property LR No. Nandi/chepkumia/502 (approximately 9.2 hectares), prohibition against withholding the original title deed, and mandamus compelling the Respondent to conclude investigations within 14 days; she also sought that leave operate as a stay of the decision contained in a letter dated 24th February 2025. She explained that although the impugned letter was dated February 2025, she only discovered the restriction when she visited the lands registry on 10th June 2025, and that the Registrar of Lands at Kapsabet lodged the restriction on the directive of the Respondent's letter. Counsel Mr Dennis Sang confirmed service per an affidavit of service sworn 9th October 2025; the Respondent was served but did not respond. The court considered the application under Articles 23(3)(f) and 47 of the Constitution, applied Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and the Salat principles on extension of time, and found the application steadfast and merited. The application was allowed in terms of prayers 2 to 6, with leave granted to apply for the judicial review orders and to operate as a stay, and the Applicant was directed to file and serve a substantive application within 21 days for mention on 8th December 2025.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Ex parte Applicant was duly served with the application
  2. 2.Whether the court should enlarge time for filing judicial review proceedings
  3. 3.Whether leave should be granted to apply for orders of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, and whether leave should operate as a stay

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether to enlarge time for filing judicial review proceedings

Holding

The court found the application for enlargement of time merited, noting the applicant only discovered the restriction on 10th June 2025 despite the impugned letter being dated 24th/25th February 2025.

Reasoning

The applicant explained the delay by showing she only learned of the restriction when she visited the lands registry on 10th June 2025, and that the Registrar lodged it pursuant to the Respondent's letter of 24th February 2025. Guided by Order 50 CPR 2010 and the Salat principles on extension of time, the court found the application 'steadfast and merited' and allowed enlargement of time.

p. 3
02

Whether leave should issue to apply for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, and operate as a stay

Holding

Leave was granted in terms of prayers 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, including leave to operate as a stay of the decision in the letter dated 24th February 2025.

Reasoning

The respondent was duly served with the chamber summons and affidavit of service sworn 9th October 2025 but chose not to respond. Considering the application under Articles 23(3)(f) and 47 of the Constitution, the court found the application for leave merited and allowed it in terms of the specified prayers, directing filing of a substantive motion within 21 days.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time is governed by Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and the Salat principles
  • Where a respondent is duly served and opts not to respond, the court may proceed on the unopposed application

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 3rd October 2025 allowed in terms of prayers 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 (enlargement of time; leave to apply for certiorari; leave to apply for prohibition; leave to apply for mandamus; leave to operate as stay of the decision in the letter dated 24th February 2025)
  2. 2.Applicant's counsel to file and serve a substantive application within twenty-one (21) days
  3. 3.Mention on 8th December 2025

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

GO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 23(3)(f) and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010

Relief refused

#

Costs of the application (no costs order appears in the final orders)

The court allowed prayers 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 but made no express order on costs despite prayer (g)

p. 3

Costs

No express costs order made in the final orders

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.

Accordingly, the application dated 3rd October 2025 is hereby allowed in terms of the prayers 2, 3, 4 ,5 and 6 therein as set out in paragraph 1 (a) (b) (c) (d) hereinabove.
p. 3Final orders - allowance of the application
The Applicant's counsel to file and serve a substantive application within the next twenty-one (21) days from this date for mention on 8th December 2025.
p. 3Direction to file substantive motion
In the instant application, it is the finding of this court that the same is steadfast and merited.
p. 3Merit of enlargement of time
Clearly, the Respondent was duly served and opted not respond to the application; see Ogada-vsMollin (2009) eKLR.
p. 2Service and unopposed application

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment gives two different dates for the impugned letter - 24th February 2025 in the prayers and 25th February 2025 in the grounds

minor

The court cites Salat (a Supreme Court case on extension of time for filing appeals) for an application to enlarge time for judicial review, a different jurisdiction

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Director of Criminal Investigations (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7635 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 3rd October 2025 (Judicial Review). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7635/eng@2025-11-03

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.