Republic v Minister for Lands & 5 others; Ndolo (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 2 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4385 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court upheld the Lands Minister's ruling on a family land dispute, confirming that appeals under Section 29 of the Land Adjudication Act are valid.
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 2nd Respondent had jurisdiction to hear the two appeals before him
- 2.Whether the Exparte Applicant has established grounds upon which this court can quash the decision rendered on 23rd May, 2023
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Minister under Section 29 of the Land Adjudication Act
The Minister had jurisdiction to hear the appeals
The Interested Party appealed to the Minister under Section 29 of the Land Adjudication Act after proceedings before the committee, Arbitration Board and Land Adjudication Officer. The Minister exercised appellate jurisdiction as provided by the Act. The claim that the appeal was time barred was raised for the first time in submissions, and submissions are not evidence.
Whether grounds for certiorari and prohibition were established
No illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety was demonstrated
The Minister gave all parties opportunity to be heard and call witnesses, allowed cross-examination, and rendered a reasoned decision. The Applicant failed to show the Minister acted without jurisdiction, contrary to law, or in breach of natural justice. Certiorari requires that a decision maker acted without or in excess of jurisdiction.
Scope of judicial review post-2010 Constitution - process-only vs merit review
A measure of merit review is permissible in appropriate cases, and this was one
The court acknowledged the two schools of thought, adopting the Supreme Court's position in Saisi (as quoted in Kabunda) that some merit analysis is needed, while judicial review is not converted into a full appellate inquiry. On merit review, the Minister was not plainly wrong in awarding the parcels to the Interested Party given the sale by the Applicant's brother.
Legal principles established
#- Submissions are not evidence and cannot introduce new issues such as limitation
- Judicial review grounds require demonstration of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety
- Certiorari issues only where a decision maker acted without or in excess of jurisdiction
- In appropriate cases a court may undertake a measure of merit review in judicial review proceedings, though judicial review is not a full appellate inquiry
Court orders
#- 1.The amended notice of motion dated 21st May, 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs awarded to the Interested Party
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 Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Actions Act; Land Adjudication Act Section 29 appeals
Relief refused
#Order of certiorari quashing the Minister's ruling/judgment dated 23rd May, 2023
Applicant failed to demonstrate illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety
Order of prohibition against enforcement of the Minister's decision
No grounds for judicial review established; Minister had jurisdiction under Section 29 of the Land Adjudication Act
Costs
Costs awarded to the Interested Party
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 therefore find that the amended notice of motion dated 21st May, 2025 is devoid of merit. The same is dismissed with costs to the Interested Party.
judicial review can only be granted where the Applicant demonstrates illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety
an order of certiorari will only issue where a decision maker has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction
This issue was raised for the first time in submissions and submissions are not evidence.
Issues in the judgment
#Interested Party's replying affidavit is dated 19th March, 2026 while the applicant's submissions are dated 12th January, 2026, yet the notice of motion is dated 21st May, 2025 in a 2023 case number; internal dates appear inconsistent
No replying affidavit is mentioned in the record yet the judgment states the Interested Party opposed the application based on one
Respondents are referenced (including a 2nd Respondent) but the judgment does not list or name the Respondents in the coram or introduction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Minister for Lands & 5 others; Ndolo (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 2 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4385 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC JR NO. E002 OF 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4385/eng@2026-07-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.