Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC JR Application No. 4 of 2019· [2021] KEELC 4109 (KLR)

Republic v Land Adjudication Officer (Kajiado County) & 4 others Ex parte Lemaron Munyepera & another [2021] KEELC 4109 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 February 2021
COChristine Ochieng
4,597 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~18 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Kajiado dismissed a challenge to Rombo Group Ranch elections, confirming judicial review cannot resolve disputed election facts.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The ex parte applicants, former officials of Rombo Group Ranch and losing candidates in the group ranch elections of 6th December 2018, sought judicial review orders of certiorari to quash the election proceedings and results, and mandamus to compel the Land Adjudication Officer and Registrar of Group Representatives to freeze the activities of elected officials and organize fresh elections. They alleged massive irregularities, intimidation and violence, use of an open ballot/queue voting system contrary to agreed ground rules, 11,762 votes cast against 3,382 registered voters, absence of a members' register, participation of minors, and falsification of results by the Returning Officer. The Respondents maintained the elections followed ground rules mutually agreed at a meeting of 21st November 2018, including the queue voting method, with adequate security and results announced on the spot. The court, applying the Council for Civil Service Unions standards of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety and Article 47 of the Constitution, held that judicial review examines the decision-making process, not the merits. The alleged irregularities required the calling of evidence and cross-examination, which is unsuitable for judicial review. The court found the Respondents performed their public duty fairly and in accordance with the Fair Administrative Action Act, and that mandamus could not issue absent proof of refusal or delay in performing a duty. The application dated 14th October 2019 was dismissed with costs to the Respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Rombo Group Ranch elections of 6th December 2018 were tainted by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety warranting certiorari

Holding

No - the applicants failed to meet the threshold for certiorari

Reasoning

The court applied the Council for Civil Service Unions standards and Article 47. The 1st Respondent convened a meeting where ground rules were agreed, conducted the elections and announced results. The alleged irregularities (register issues, violence, falsified results) require calling evidence and examining merits, which is not the province of judicial review. The applicants also waited 53 days after the elections before moving to court.

p. 4
02

Whether mandamus should issue to compel the Respondents to freeze the activities of elected officials and conduct fresh elections

Holding

No - the Respondents performed their duties reasonably and in accordance with the Fair Administrative Action Act

Reasoning

Mandamus compels performance of a refused public duty. Here the 1st Respondent responded to the applicants' letter, convened the ground-rules meeting and oversaw the elections as requested. No sufficient evidence showed refusal, neglect or unreasonable delay, nor excess of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice. The applicants in truth sought to dictate the manner in which elections were conducted, which would interfere with the Respondents' discretion.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision
  • An administrative decision can only be challenged for illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety
  • Mandamus issues to compel performance of a public duty that has been refused or unreasonably delayed, and is a discretionary remedy

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 14th October, 2019 is dismissed with costs to the Respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land (Group Representatives) Act Cap 287section 17
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 47
  • Land Registration Actsection 8(1)
  • Community Land Act (Regulations) 2017Paragraph 14(1), 5.6 and 12(j)
  • Elections Actsection 86(1)(b)
  • Land Adjudication Actsection 5(1)(c) and section 23(5)(c)
  • Fair Administrative Action Actnull
  • Community Land Actnull
  • Halsbury's Laws of England (4th edn) vol. 1 page 111null

Cases cited (4)

  • Council for Civil Service Unions vs. Minister for Civil Service
    [1985] A.C. 374
  • Republic vs. National Employment Authority & 3 others Exparte Middle East Consultancy Services Limited
    (2018) eKLR
  • Reid vs. Secretary of State for Scotland
    (1999) 2 AC 512
  • Kenya National Examination Council V Republic Ex parte Gathenji Njoroge & 9 Others
    (1997) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court/Environment and Land Court under section 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, in relation to Article 47 of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Land Adjudication Officer (Kajiado County) & 4 others Ex parte Lemaron Munyepera & another [2021] KEELC 4109 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). ELC JR Application No. 4 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/4109/eng@2021-02-25

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.