Matekwa v County Government of Kakamega & 14 others (Judicial Review E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5183 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that boundary disputes belong with the Land Registrar first, no matter how a landowner frames their case.
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 applicant has satisfied the threshold for the grant of leave to commence judicial review proceedings for orders of prohibition and mandamus
- 2.Whether such leave should operate as a stay of the intended implementation of the alleged road expansion pending the hearing and determination of the substantive motion
Key legal issues
#Threshold for grant of leave to institute judicial review
An applicant must demonstrate a prima facie case founded on reasonable grounds; leave filters out frivolous, vexatious or hopeless cases
The court applied Mirugi Kariuki v Attorney General and Republic v Kenya Revenue Authority ex parte Yaya Towers Limited, holding that the leave stage is a filtering mechanism. The applicant failed to demonstrate any action by the respondents worthy of being inhibited, and thus no prima facie case was disclosed.
Jurisdiction over general boundary disputes
Section 18 of the Land Registration Act bars the court from hearing boundary disputes over general boundaries, vesting such jurisdiction in the Land Registrar
The court held that the applicant's quarrel with the interested parties over the boundary between parcels 1171 and 1172, and whether a road, wayleave or easement exists, is a boundary dispute. The applicant had not lodged a boundary dispute before the Land Registrar, so mandamus to compel resurvey could not issue. Regulation 40 of the Land Registration (General) Regulations prescribes the procedure.
Whether leave should operate as a stay
Whether leave operates as a stay is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised judiciously; stay preserves the subject matter and prevents the application from being rendered nugatory
Relying on Taib A. Taib v Minister for Local Government, the court noted the purpose of stay in judicial review is to prevent continuation of the decision-making process or suspend implementation of a decision. No actions of the respondents were demonstrated worthy of being inhibited, so no basis for a stay existed.
Legal principles established
#- A boundary dispute cannot be recharacterised as a judicial review dispute; boundary disputes over general boundaries must first be determined by the Land Registrar under section 18 of the Land Registration Act
- Disputes relating to general boundaries cannot be resolved in the first instance by the Environment and Land Court regardless of the procedural vehicle used
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons dated 11th March 2025 is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 53 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules - leave to institute judicial review proceedings
Relief refused
#Leave to institute judicial review proceedings for orders of prohibition and mandamus, with leave to operate as a stay
No prima facie case made out; the dispute is a boundary dispute within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Land Registrar under section 18 of the Land Registration Act
Costs
No order as to costs - 'Both parties herein having failed to pursue a conclusive determination of the boundary dispute herein for several decades, I make no order as to costs.'
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.
A boundary dispute however framed cannot mutate into a judicial review dispute. It remains a boundary dispute.
Section 18 of the Land Registration Act bars this court from hearing and determining general boundary disputes and vests such jurisdiction in the Land Registrar.
In the premises, the court finds that no prima facie case has been made and therefore the chamber summons dated 11th March 2025 lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Both parties herein having failed to pursue a conclusive determination of the boundary dispute herein for several decades, I make no order as to costs.
It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#Interested parties' grounds of opposition dated 13th June 2026 appear to predate/relate inconsistently with the timeline (application dated 11th March 2025, judgment July 2026) - possibly a typographical error for 2025
Date of delivery stated as 29th day of July 2026 while submissions by the applicant were dated 21st March 2025 - consistent, but the grounds of opposition dated 13th June 2026 conflict with the applicant's further affidavit sworn 24th April 2025 chronology
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Matekwa v County Government of Kakamega & 14 others (Judicial Review E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5183 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons dated 11th March 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5183/eng@2026-07-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.