Zarry v Land Registrar, Kwale & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E013 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3916 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that land registries cannot demand irrelevant documents before issuing searches, and ordered the Kwale Registrar to release the records.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.What is the scope, nature and meaning of the concept of Judicial Review?
- 2.Whether the Judicial review suit instituted by the Ex-Parte Applicant meets the threshold of such a suit and has merit whatsoever?
- 3.Whether the Exparte Applicant is entitled to the prerogative reliefs sought.
- 4.Who will bear the costs of the suit?
Key legal issues
#Scope and nature of judicial review under the Constitution of 2010
Judicial review is no longer a common law prerogative but a constitutional remedy; post-2010 it is entrenched in Articles 23(3)(f) and 47, and where a party comes under the Constitution the court may undertake a merit review.
The court traced judicial review from the Law Reform Act and Order 53 to its constitutional entrenchment. Relying on the Supreme Court's Dande decision, it noted that a suit filed under the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act invites examination of fairness and the constitutional guarantees of expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair administrative action, going beyond the narrow Order 53 process review.
Whether the applicant's suit met the threshold for judicial review
Yes. The applicant complied with Order 53 procedure, sought leave, paid statutory fees, filed form RL 26, and the Registrar's refusal to issue records was a reviewable public-law wrong.
The applicant showed illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety: the Registrar refused to issue an official search and green card despite full payment of statutory fees, demanding a 'four pages of a Certificate of Title' requirement unknown to the Land Registration Act and impossible to satisfy since no title had ever been issued. The court held the Registrar failed in his statutory duty as custodian of public records, meeting the mandamus test of a clear public legal duty, prior demand and express refusal.
Entitlement to prerogative reliefs
Mandamus and certiorari were granted; the court declined to make orders on ownership or use, confining itself to the records/registration information issue.
The court found a case made out for mandamus compelling issuance of the search, green card and registry records, and certiorari quashing the unlawful pre-condition demanding a Certificate of Title. It invoked Articles 73 and 232 on accountability and ethics, and aligned itself with the Casca Traders authority. It deliberately withheld conservatory orders on ownership since judicial review cannot determine title disputes.
Legal principles established
#- Once statutory conditions are met, a Registrar cannot frustrate a proprietor through administrative inertia or unreasonable demands.
- Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision.
- To succeed in judicial review the applicant must show the decision or act complained of is tainted with illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.
- Failure to comply with Order 53 Rule 7 (annexing the decision sought to be quashed) renders a certiorari application incompetent.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Ex-Parte Applicant
- 2.An Order of Mandamus compelling the Respondent to forthwith issue to the Applicant the official search, green card, and all registry records relating to Plot No. 378 - Diani Settlement Scheme (DSS)
- 3.An Order of Certiorari removing into the court and quashing the Respondent's illegal administrative requirement that the Applicant must first produce 'the four pages of a Certificate of Title' before an official search or registry extract can be issued in respect of Plot 378 DSS
- 4.A Declaration that the Respondent's refusal and/or neglect to issue the Applicant with the land records is unlawful, unreasonable, irrational, procedurally unfair, and in violation of Articles 35, 40, 47 and 48 of the Constitution and Sections 4-7 of the Fair Administrative Action Act
- 5.Costs of the suit awarded to the Ex-Parte Applicant, to be borne by the 1st & 2nd Respondents jointly and severally
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23, 35, 40, 47, 48 & 50 of the Constitution; Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Fair Administrative Action Act; Section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011; Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Conservatory orders concerning ownership and use of the suit property
Issues of ownership and use cannot be delved into under a judicial review application
Costs
Costs of the Judicial Review suit awarded to the Ex-Parte Applicant, to be borne by the 1st & 2nd Respondents 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.
An Order of Mandamus is hereby issued compelling the Respondent to forthwith issue to the Applicant the official search, green card, and all registry records relating to Plot No. 378- Diani Settlement Scheme (DSS).
An Order of Certiorari is hereby issued removing into this Honourable Court for purposes of quashing the Respondent's illegal administrative requirement that the Applicant must first produce "the four pages of a Certificate of Title" before an official search or registry extract can be issued in respect of Plot 378 DSS.
THAT the costs of this Judicial Review suit be and are hereby awarded to the Ex - Parte Applicant, to be borne by the 1st & 2nd Respondents jointly and severally.
once statutory conditions are met, a Registrar cannot frustrate a proprietor through administrative inertia or unreasonable demands.
The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorized by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court.
Issues in the judgment
#The Fair Administrative Action Act is inconsistently dated in the judgment - described both as No. 4 of 2015 and No. 4 of 2014
Chronological anomaly: the affidavit of service is dated 18th February 2026 while the motion was dated 11th December 2025 and judgment reserved 17th June 2026, yet the cause number is E013 of 2025 - dates internally consistent but the suit styling and proceedings dates lie in the future relative to typical filing
The judgment refers to 'Pastoli – Versus Kabale District Local Government Council (Supra)' before the case is first cited, and spells it variously as 'Kabale' and 'Kabole'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Zarry v Land Registrar, Kwale & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E013 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3916 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Judicial Review No. E013 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3916/eng@2026-06-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.