Republic v Kajiado West District Land Registrar & 9 others; Mbuthi Investments Company Limited & 13 others (Ex parte Applicants) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4878 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court in Kajiado ruled it can hear a judicial review challenge to a land registrar's boundary exercise, dismissing objections and clearing the case for full hearing.
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 Preliminary Objection by the Respondents and 1st and 2nd Interested Parties challenging the court's jurisdiction to entertain the judicial review application is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether Section 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act oust the High Court's/ELC's judicial review jurisdiction over a boundary-fixing exercise
The preliminary objection fails because the applicants challenge the process, not the statutory mandate or merits, so the court has jurisdiction to hear the judicial review application
The court noted the applicants do not challenge any decision of the Land Registrar (none has been made) nor his statutory mandate under sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act; they challenge the process, alleging illegality, irrationality and abuse of power. Since judicial review is concerned with process, the objection that the matter is a boundary dispute outside the court's jurisdiction cannot succeed at this interlocutory stage.
Grounds for judicial review under the traditional grounds and the Fair Administrative Action Act
The FAA Act expanded judicial review grounds to include bias, ulterior motives, bad faith, abuse of discretion and proportionality, so allegations of irrationality and abuse of power are reviewable
The court adopted the classic Pastoli grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety, and held that section 7 of the FAA Act expanded these grounds. It also relied on Suchan Investment and JSC v Mbalu Mutava on Article 47 and proportionality, holding the applicants' allegations of illegality, irrationality and abuse of power are properly raised in judicial review proceedings.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant who challenges the process by which a statutory decision-maker acts, rather than the merits of the decision itself, may properly invoke judicial review jurisdiction
- Judicial review concerns the process of decision-making, not the merits of the decision
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection by the Respondents and the 1st to 4th interested parties is dismissed with costs
- 2.The substantive judicial review application is directed to proceed to hearing on its merits
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules (judicial review jurisdiction)
Relief refused
#Quashing of the site visit summons dated 30 January 2025 (certiorari)
Not determined at this stage; the substantive application remains pending after the preliminary objection was dismissed
Costs
Preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the Ex parte Applicants
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.
Judicial review applications do not deal with the merits of the case but only with the process.
It cannot therefore be legally sound to say that they aggrieved Ex Parte Applicants have no right to invoke judicial review proceedings in such a case or that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain such proceedings.
Consequently I dismiss the preliminary objection by the Respondents and the 1st to 4 th interested parties with costs and direct that the substantive judicial review application proceeds to hearing on its merits.
Issues in the judgment
#Delivery date stated as 24 July 2026, which appears inconsistent with the proceedings dated 2025 and may be a typographical error for 2025
The disposition states dismissal against '1st to 4th interested parties' although the preliminary objection was filed by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents and 1st and 2nd Interested Parties, creating an inconsistency as to which parties the ruling binds
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Kajiado West District Land Registrar & 9 others; Mbuthi Investments Company Limited & 13 others (Ex parte Applicants) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4878 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kajiado ELCLJR/E005/2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4878/eng@2026-07-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.