Mulinge v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning & 5 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4700 (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 court ought to extend time for the filing of the judicial review proceedings herein
- 2.Whether the Applicant has demonstrated that he is entitled to the judicial review orders of certiorari and prohibition as sought
Key legal issues
#Extension of time for filing judicial review
Extension allowed where applicant could not, despite due diligence, have known of the decision in time and no prejudice was shown
The decision was made on 29th October 2025 and the application filed 17th December 2025, a delay of about six days beyond the six-week window under Rule 6 of the Fair Administrative Action Rules, 2024. The Applicant explained he only learnt of the decision on about 1st December 2025 through market gossip and obtained a certified copy on 2nd December 2025, borne out by the stamp of the 3rd Respondent. The Respondents showed no prejudice.
Whether the Minister's appeal entertained outside the 60-day statutory period amounted to excess of jurisdiction
The allegation was unsubstantiated because the Applicant produced no memorandum of appeal or official receipt proving the filing date
Relying on section 109 of the Evidence Act, the court held the evidential burden lay on the Applicant to prove the filing was out of time. No memorandum of appeal or official receipt was availed, so the claim of excess of jurisdiction failed.
Procedural impropriety in representation by a person without letters of administration
No procedural impropriety; proceedings before the Minister need not strictly adhere to Civil Procedure Act or Law of Succession, and customary-law representatives are recognised
The court applied Dominic Musei Ikombo v Kyule Makau, holding that under Section 13 of the Land Adjudication Act representatives under African customary law are recognised without letters of administration. The 1st Respondent verified the Interested Party's identity, the Applicant raised no objection during the hearing, and no new issues were heard.
Whether the Applicant was denied a fair hearing
No denial of fair hearing; the Applicant was invited, attended, gave evidence and cross-examined
Applying the audi alteram partem rule and the due process standard requiring reasonable notice with sufficient particulars, the court found from the certified proceedings that the Applicant was invited, attended the hearing on 21st August 2025, and both he and the Interested Party gave evidence. Review lies over process, not merits.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision itself
- The burden of proving a particular fact lies on the person who wishes the court to believe in its existence
- Proceedings before the Minister on appeal under the Land Adjudication Act do not require strict adherence to the Civil Procedure Act or Law of Succession; representatives under African customary law are recognised
Court orders
#- 1.Extension of time for lodging the judicial review application allowed in terms of prayer number 2
- 2.The application dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 7(a), 9(1), 10 and 12 of the Fair Administrative Action Act and Rules 4, 6(1)(2)(2), 11, 13(1) and (2) of the Fair Administrative Action Rules, 2024
Relief refused
#Order of Prohibition prohibiting the 3rd and 4th Respondents from implementing and enforcing the decision of 29th October 2025 in Adjudication Land Appeal Case No. 14 of 1999
No proof of procedural impropriety or ultra vires action; the application amounts to an appeal on the merits
Order of Certiorari to quash the decision of the 1st and 2nd Respondents made on 29th October 2025
Judicial review concerns the decision-making process, not the merits, and the process was found fair
Claim that the appeal was lodged outside the statutory 60-day period (excess of jurisdiction)
Applicant failed to avail a memorandum of appeal or official receipt to substantiate the allegation
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
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.
For that reason, the application for extension of time for lodging the proceedings herein is hereby allowed in terms of prayer number 2.
In the end, the application is devoid of merit. It is dismissed with costs.
Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not with merits of the decision itself
In order to succeed in an application for Judicial Review, the applicant has to show that the decision or act complained of is tainted with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.
The instant application constitutes an appeal on the merits of the 1st Respondent's decision and these are not the proper proceedings for such a challenge.
Issues in the judgment
#Interested Party named in the cause title area but not listed among the Respondents in the prayer; counsel for an Interested Party appears at the close yet her joinder is only evident from the body of the judgment
Submissions of the Applicant were not on record when judgment was written
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mulinge v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning & 5 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4700 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC JR NO. E016 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4700/eng@2026-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.