Republic v Attorney General & 18 others; Makunyu & 112 others (Ex parte Applicants) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E038 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4979 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Meru court dismissed 109 landowners' attempt to force consent to sue, telling them to use the law's own appeal process first.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether a proper case has been made to warrant issuance of an order compelling the 2nd respondent to issue to the 109 ex-parte applicants and to the 17 interested parties statutory consents to initiate a suit/suits relating to land in Mbwaa 1 Adjudication Section
- 2.Whether a proper case has been made to warrant issuance of an order prohibiting inspection of the adjudication register in Mbwaa 1 Adjudication Section
Key legal issues
#Whether mandamus should issue compelling issuance of statutory consents to sue
No - the statutory appeal remedy under Section 30(3) was not exhausted and no evidence of payment of fees or formal applications was presented
The applicants claimed the 2nd respondent refused their requests for consents, but produced no receipts for the Kshs 3,000 statutory fee and no proof of formal applications to the correct office. Even if refusals occurred, Section 30(3) of the Land Adjudication Act provided an appeal to the Cabinet Secretary within 28 days, which was ignored. Disregarding a mandatory statutory remedy defeats a mandamus application.
Whether prohibition should issue against register inspection
No - no proper basis existed and the inspection period had already expired, rendering the relief moot
Having found no case for mandamus on the first issue, no foundation remained for the prohibitory order. Further, the statutory 60-day inspection period ran from 27/6/2025 and lapsed, so there was no ongoing or prospective exercise to restrain. Prohibition cannot issue against a completed act.
Whether interested parties could claim judicial review relief
No - they neither obtained leave nor filed a formal motion, only a supporting affidavit
The 17 interested parties joined after leave had been granted to others. They did not apply to be ex-parte applicants or for leave in their own right. Judicial review relief requires leave and a formal notice of motion; a plea embedded in a supporting affidavit gives the court no procedural platform on which to grant relief.
Legal principles established
#- A person aggrieved by an adjudication officer's refusal to grant consent to sue may appeal to the Cabinet Secretary within 28 days; judicial review is not a substitute for this statutory remedy
- A party seeking judicial review relief must obtain leave and bring a formal motion; an affidavit alone provides no platform for relief
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 8/10/2025 is rejected and dismissed for lack of merit
- 2.The ex-parte applicants shall bear costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under the Land Adjudication Act and Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Order of mandamus compelling issuance of statutory consents to sue
Applicants did not pay requisite fees, present formal applications, or exhaust the statutory appeal to the Cabinet Secretary under Section 30(3) of the Land Adjudication Act
Order of prohibition against continued register inspection
No proper basis given the finding on the first issue, and the inspection period had already lapsed
Judicial review relief sought by the 17 interested parties
They neither sought leave nor joined as ex-parte applicants; they only filed an affidavit
Costs
The ex-parte applicants shall bear costs of the suit, in line with Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
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.
In light of the above findings, the notice of motion dated 8/10/2025 is rejected and dismissed for lack of merit. In line with the principle in Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, the ex-parte applicants shall bear costs of the suit.
instead of utilizing the redress mechanism given to them by the law, the 109 ex-parte applicants chose to completely disregard the statute.
Clearly, it would be unrealistic to expect the 2nd respondent to register an objection that related to a parcel number that did not exist in the published register.
As things stand, all they filed is an affidavit. Consequently, the court has no platform on which to consider the plea by the 17 interested parties.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment states the 60-day inspection period lapsed on 25/8/2025 in one place and refers to it ending earlier elsewhere; also record date arithmetic: publication 26/6/2025 plus 60 days gives 25/8/2025 but respondents plead 23/8/2025
Judgment dated and delivered 21 July 2026, but supporting affidavit of interested parties sworn 12/1/2026 and submissions dated 16/12/2025 — chronology internally consistent; note the ex-tempore leave ruling dated 17/9/2025 precedes motion of 8/10/2025, consistent
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Attorney General & 18 others; Makunyu & 112 others (Ex parte Applicants) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E038 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4979 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC (MISC) CASE NO. E038 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4979/eng@2026-07-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.