Republic v The Land Registrar Embu; Ex-Parte Peter Nyaga Munyi; Irine Marigu (Interested Party)

owner of Land Parcel No. Ngandori/Kirigi/1784. He states that he has been unable to implement the confirmed grant despite making several visits to the Land Registrar's office in Embu, where he was informed that there are no records relating to the suit land. He further deposes that the original title is missing and that a duplicate title cannot be issued in the circumstances. He avers that the Respondent has insisted that the register can only be reconstructed upon obtaining a court order. He therefore contends that this Court has power to compel the Respondent to execute their statutory mandate by reconstructing the register and issuing another title deed. 3. The Respondent opposed the application through the Grounds of Opposition dated 02/06/2026. They contend that the Exparte Applicant has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that any effort was made to have the Land Register reconstructed. That they have also not followed the procedure provided under Section 33 of the Land Registration Act. The Respondent further contends that the application is unmerited, misconceived, does not meet the threshold for the grant of the orders sought, and ought to be dismissed. 4. The Interested Party filed a replying affidavit dated 20/05/2026. She deposed that she does not oppose the grant of leave to institute judicial review proceedings or the reconstruction of the register for Land Parcel No. Ngandori/Kirigi/1784. She stated that she is however a beneficiary with an interest in the suit property as provided in the confirmed grant and is therefore directly affected by any administrative action concerning the land. She further deposed Page 2 of 5

page 2 of 6

that there exists a subsisting High Court judgment directing that the suit land be subdivided and distributed amongst beneficiaries which remains binding. It was her contention that any order of mandamus, if granted ought to expressly direct that the reconstruction of the register be done in compliance with the existing High Court decree on subdivision so as to avoid conflict in records or prejudice to the beneficiaries and that it should also be done in accordance with the Land Registration Act. 5. She attached to the replying affidavit a copy of the Judgement in HCCA E025 of 2023 Edward Nyaga Karangi v Simon Kambi Munyi. 6. When the application came up for directions, the parties agreed canvass it by way of written submissions. 7. The Ex-Parte Applicant filed submissions dated 07/05/2026 through the firm of Victor L. Andade Advocates. He submitted that leave to commence judicial review proceedings should be granted because the Respondent has failed to implement a confirmed grant on the ground that the land register and related records are missing. He contended that the Land Registrar has a statutory duty to reconstruct the register and that the failure to do so has denied the Applicant the benefit of the confirmed grant. 8. He further submitted that the application satisfies the threshold under Order 53 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, arguing that leave is intended only to filter out frivolous or unmeritorious claims. He relied on the cases of Republic v County Council of Kwale & Another Ex Parte Kondo & 57 others Page 3 of 5

page 3 of 6

and Republic v Law Society of Kenya & Another Ex Parte Neddie Eve Akello Barons Estates Limited (Represented By Collins Kipchumba Ngetich) (Interested Party) 2020 KEHC 2323(KLR) (1) and maintained that he has demonstrated an arguable case fit for further consideration and therefore prays that leave be granted to institute judicial review proceedings. 9. The Respondent filed submissions dated 02/06/2026 through the Office of the Attorney General. They submitted that the Applicant had failed to satisfy the threshold for the issuance of an order of mandamus. It was argued that an order of mandamus will only issue where a public authority has failed, neglected or refused to perform a statutory duty owed to an applicant. It was submitted that the Applicant had not demonstrated that the Land Registrar refused or neglected to perform any statutory duty. That the Applicant had failed to show compliance with the procedure prescribed under section 33 of the Land Registration Act for reconstruction of a lost or destroyed register, and in particular failed to demonstrate that any formal application was made to the Land Registrar or that there was any refusal, neglect or unreasonable delay in acting upon such request. 10. It was submitted further that the Applicant failed to exhaust the available statutory and administrative remedies before invoking submitted the Court's that no judicial review jurisdiction. It was evidence was produced of any correspondence, application, demand or request made to the Land Registrar seeking reconstruction of the register or issuance of a replacement title. It was the Respondents Page 4 of 5

page 4 of 6

contention that the Ex-Parte applicant had therefore failed to establish that the Respondent neglected or refused to perform any statutory duty and therefore the application was filed prematurely. They urged that the application be dismissed with costs. 11. Having considered the application, the responses made thereto and the parties' submissions, the issue for determination is whether the Ex-parte Applicant has met the threshold for leave to commence judicial review proceedings. 12. The applicable law on leave is Order 53 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which provides that no application for judicial review orders should be made unless leave of the court is sought. The main reason for the leave is as explained Republic v County Council of Kwale & another; Kondo & 57 others (Ex parte) [1998] KEHC 2 (KLR) which is to ensure that an applicant is only allowed to proceed to substantive hearing if the Court is satisfied that there is a case fit for further consideration. 13. The Applicant's case is that the Land Registrar has failed to reconstruct the register for Land Parcel No. Ngandori/Kirigi/1784 and issue a replacement title despite the Applicant's efforts to have the matter addressed. The Respondent on the other hand contends that the Applicant has not demonstrated that he made a formal application for reconstruction of the register or complied with the procedure under section 33 of the Land Registration Act. 14. I have considered the material placed before the Court. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the Ex-parte Page 5 of 5

page 5 of 6

Applicant made any application for reconstruction of the register in accordance with section 33 of the Land Registration Act and that, despite doing so, the Land Registrar failed or refused to act on the application. The Court is therefore not satisfied that the Ex-Parte Applicant has demonstrated that the Land Registrar had failed or refused to perform a statutory duty. The application is in my view premature. 15. In the circumstances, the Chamber Summons dated 01/04/2025 is hereby dismissed. The Ex-parte Applicant shall bear the costs of the application. DATED, DELIVERED and SIGNED at EMBU this 24 th Day of September, 2026. HON. E.C CHERONO ELC JUDGE, EMBU In the presence of; 1. Mr. Andande for the Ex-parte Applicant. 2. Mr. Kiongo for the Respondent. 3. Ruth C/A Page 6 of 5

page 6 of 6