Republic v Cabinet Secretary in Charge of Lands & 6 others; Munyithya (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review E003 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 669 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court dismissed a landowner's bid to overturn a land adjudication decision because he could not prove his allegations with proper documents.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 7th Respondent's appeal to the Minister was filed out of time
The ground failed; there was no proof in the court record that the appeals were filed out of time.
The applicant relied on forms of appeal allegedly dated 22nd November 2019, but the annexure DKM3 was never attached to the supporting affidavit, and the documents filed at the leave stage were never filed and served as directed under Order 53 Rule 4. The forms in the record lacked the claimed date and were unsigned, so the out-of-time allegation was unproved.
Whether the applicant proved he filed Appeal No. 96 of 2020 in respect of parcel 1069
The applicant did not prove that he filed Appeal No. 96 of 2020 or that it related to parcel 1069.
The applicant produced only a receipt dated 13th November 2018 referencing parcel 1069, but did not produce his Form of Appeal, and nothing showed the appeal number allocated. The documents on record showed appeals 93 and 96 of 2020 as having been filed by the 7th Respondent and relating to parcels 1374, 1375 and 1376.
Whether the 2nd Respondent's proceedings and decision violated natural justice, the Land Adjudication Act, the FAAA and the Constitution
No illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety was established; the decision was within jurisdiction and fairly made.
The 2nd Respondent dealt with appeals 93 and 96 of 2020 concerning parcels 1374-1376; parties were properly summoned, testified, called witnesses and cross-examined. The decision-maker considered the evidence and prior tribunal proceedings. Applying the Pastoli criteria, the decision was not unlawful, grossly unreasonable or procedurally unfair.
Legal principles established
#- A party alleging that an appeal to the Minister was filed out of time must prove the filing date; without proof, the challenge fails.
- A party asserting that it filed an appeal must produce the Form of Appeal and evidence of allocation of an appeal number; a receipt alone does not prove filing.
- Judicial review concerns the decision-making process, not the merits; the applicant must show illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated June 8, 2023 is hereby dismissed.
- 2.Costs are awarded to the Respondents.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and Section 7 of the Fair Administrative Action Act; Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Cabinet Secretary in Charge of Lands & 6 others; Munyithya (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review E003 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 669 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review / Miscellaneous Application (ex parte applicant's Notice of Motion dated 8th June 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/669/eng@2025-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.