AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutJudicial Review application, Notice of Motion dated 6th December 2024· [2025] KEELC 8122 (KLR)
Republic v Regional Surveyor, Nyanza & 4 others; Oduogo (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E012 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8122 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#The ex parte Applicant sought judicial review orders of certiorari to quash the Land Registrar, Kisumu's decision of 20th September 2024, which amended the Registry Index Map sheet No. 11 and delineated boundaries between parcels Kisumu/Konya/6638, 837 and 9645 according to physical features on the ground (a sisal plantation), and orders of prohibition and mandamus against implementation and for a fresh survey according to the original map. She contended the decision-making process lacked procedural fairness, no proper boundary dispute process was followed, sisal plantations did not exist on the ground, and the report failed to disclose the extent of alleged encroachment by her perimeter wall. The 1st to 4th Respondents maintained the Land Registrar properly exercised jurisdiction under section 18 of the Land Registration Act, that affected parties were heard, and that the remedies were unavailable. The 5th Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the matter was sub judice, there being an active suit, Winam MC ELC No. E048 of 2024, between the same parties challenging the very same report. The court examined the plaint in that suit and found the ex parte applicant was a defendant there, that the same report of 20th September 2024 was under challenge, and that she sought similar outcomes. Holding the judicial review to be sub judice in breach of section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court struck out the application and made no order as to costs. The court made no findings on the merits of the boundary dispute or the alleged procedural irregularities.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether the judicial review is sub judice
Holding
Yes; the same Land Registrar's report dated 20th September 2024 is directly in issue in Winam MC ELC No. E048 of 2024 between the same parties, offending section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the application was struck out
Reasoning
The court examined the plaint in Winam MC ELC No. E048 of 2024 and found the ex parte applicant was the 2nd Defendant and the 5th Respondent the 1st Defendant, with the same Land Registrar's report the subject of challenge. The plaintiffs there sought orders declaring the same report null and void, which overlapped with the certiorari relief here. The ex parte applicant ought to have pursued that suit as it sought similar outcomes.
p. 6
Legal principles established
#- A judicial review application is barred as sub judice where there is an active existing suit involving the same parties and the same subject matter, offending section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act
Court orders
#- 1.The Judicial Review application is struck out on the ground that it is sub judice
- 2.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 47 and 159(2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; sections 4, 7, 9 and 10 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act, 2015; sections 1A, 63(e) and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 51 Rule 6 and Order 53 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Regional Surveyor, Nyanza & 4 others; Oduogo (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E012 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8122 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review application, Notice of Motion dated 6th December 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8122/eng@2025-11-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.