Republic v Land Registrar, Kajiado & another Ex Parte Joseph Ndegwa Kamau & 3 others [2018] KEELC 2069 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the ex parte applicant demonstrated sufficient interest and entitlement to judicial review orders against the Land Registrar
The application was unmerited; the applicant knowingly contracted with vendors lacking letters of administration, fraud claims require oral evidence, and the court lacks jurisdiction to reverse succession-cause proceedings
The court applied the CSRUM standards of judicial review, finding the applicant was aware from the Sale Agreement's special conditions that the vendors had no grant. The fraud allegations could not be resolved without viva voce evidence. The applicant had adequate alternative remedies under the Law of Succession Act and a civil claim for breach of contract, and any challenge to registration tied to a succession cause must be pursued within that cause at the High Court.
Whether mandamus could issue to compel reversion of the registers to the deceased
No - mandamus does not lie where the complaint is that a duty was wrongfully performed and cannot quash what has already been done
Following Republic v Kenya National Examinations Council ex parte Gathenji, the court held mandamus commands performance of a statutory public duty not yet performed; where the complaint is wrongful performance, the proper remedy is certiorari, which itself only issues for lack/excess of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision, on the grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety
- Mandamus compels performance of a public duty imposed by statute and cannot undo what has already been done; only certiorari can quash a decision already made
- Allegations of fraud must be determined on viva voce evidence and are not amenable to judicial review proceedings
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 17th November 2010 and filed on 18th November 2010 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application are awarded to the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Law Reform Act, sections 8 and 9 (orders of mandamus, certiorari and prohibition)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Land Registrar, Kajiado & another Ex Parte Joseph Ndegwa Kamau & 3 others [2018] KEELC 2069 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). JR Miscellaneous Application No. 82 of 2017 (formerly Machakos JR Misc. Application No. 242 of 2010). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/2069/eng@2018-07-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.