Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (Ex parte Applicants' Amended Notice of Motion dated 29th January, 2024)· [2025] KEELC 474 (KLR)

Kivuva & 3 others v Katelembo Task Force & another; Kitata & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Administrators of the Estate of Kitata Ngomo) (Judicial Review Cause 1 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 474 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
3 February 2025
COChristine Ochieng
1,883 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court dismissed a judicial review challenge to a cancelled Machakos land title, ruling that ownership disputes belong in a civil suit, not judicial review.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The ex parte Applicants (Jeremiah Nzioka Kivuva, Lucy Mukii Makumbi and Tonia Mutindi Kakuti) moved the Court by Amended Notice of Motion dated 29th January 2024 seeking certiorari to quash the 1st Respondent's decision cancelling Title Deed Athi River/Athi River Block 1/722, and prohibition against the Land Registrar, Machakos County from cancelling the title and registering it in favour of the Administrators of the Estate of Kitata Ngomo. The dispute arose from a Taskforce constituted by Katelembo Athiani Muvuti Ranching Company which found that the suit land belonged to the estate of Kitata Ngomo (member No. 2705) and had never been transferred. The Respondents and Interested Parties opposed, contending the application was time barred, incompetent and that the court lacked jurisdiction. The court, applying the Council of Civil Service Unions grounds (illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety), Article 47 of the Constitution and Section 7 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act, held that the Applicants fully participated in the Taskforce proceedings and were granted an audience. Their real grievance related to the root of title and ownership, requiring viva voce evidence and documents, which ought to be litigated in a civil claim rather than judicial review. Finding no irrationality or unreasonableness, the court struck out the application and ordered each party to bear their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Taskforce decision cancelling the Applicants' title was amenable to and flawed on judicial review grounds

Holding

The Applicants participated fully in the Taskforce proceedings; their grievance went to the merits and root of title, not the decision-making process, so judicial review relief was unavailable

Reasoning

The court applied the Council of Civil Service Unions tripartite grounds and the Fair Administrative Actions Act. It found the Applicants were heard by the Taskforce, the Chairman's role was explained, and the real dispute concerned ownership and root of title, which requires viva voce evidence in a civil claim. No irrationality, unreasonableness or procedural impropriety was demonstrated to warrant certiorari or prohibition.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision itself
  • Grounds of judicial review are illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety
  • Where a dispute requires proving root of title, viva voce evidence is needed and a civil claim, not judicial review, is the proper avenue

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The amended Notice of Motion application is struck out as unmerited
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Fair Administrative Actions ActSection 7 (and 7(2))
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 47

Cases cited (3)

  • Council for Civil Service Unions vs. Minister for Civil Service
    [1985] A.C. 374
  • Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration)
    2 S.C.R. 817
  • Municipal Council of Mombasa vs. Republic & Umoja Consultants Ltd
    Civil Appeal No. 185 of 2001
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction under Article 47 of the Constitution and Section 7 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kivuva & 3 others v Katelembo Task Force & another; Kitata & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Administrators of the Estate of Kitata Ngomo) (Judicial Review Cause 1 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 474 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Ex parte Applicants' Amended Notice of Motion dated 29th January, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/474/eng@2025-02-03

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