Republic v Land Registrar Kwale; Kabila & another (Interested Parties) (Judicial Review Cause E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1261 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court cancelled a Kwale land title issued without hearing the competing claimant, but left the real ownership question to be decided in a full trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the orders sought by the exparte applicant can be issued under judicial review proceedings
- 2.Whether the judicial review prerogative orders of certiorari and prohibition are available to the ex-parte applicant
- 3.Who bears costs of these proceedings
Key legal issues
#Scope of judicial review - process versus merit review
The applicant approached the court under the Constitution alleging violations of Articles 40 and 47, which permits merit review, but the final ownership dispute cannot be resolved in judicial review proceedings.
The court traced the evolution of judicial review from the traditional process-focused view to the Supreme Court's recognition that constitutionalised judicial review may extend to merit review. However, given the mutually antagonistic fraud allegations, documentary discrepancies in green cards, sizes and map sheets, and the need for evidence from land registration agencies, merit review was inappropriate. The ownership dispute required viva voce testimony in an appropriate forum.
Whether the respondent's registration of the Interested Party violated fair administrative action under Article 47
Yes. The respondent knew from its own records of the second green card in favour of the exparte applicant yet registered the Interested Party pursuant to the Kadhis court order without notice or hearing to the exparte applicant.
The registrar admitted in its replying affidavit that its records contained a green card opened for the exparte applicant. Ignoring this obligatory relevant consideration and mechanically obeying the Kadhis court order amounted to unwarranted adherence to a fixed principle. Section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act required prior notice and an opportunity to be heard. The failure breached Article 47 and warranted certiorari.
Availability of certiorari and prohibition
Certiorari was available to quash the registration decision and title; prohibition was granted only as an interim preservation measure pending final determination of ownership elsewhere.
Relying on the Kenya National Examinations Council dictum, certiorari issues where a decision is made without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or in breach of natural justice. The registration made without hearing the applicant breached natural justice. Prohibition in the absolute terms sought was refused because the applicant's ownership was not declared, but a preservation order was warranted given competing titles.
Effect of alleged fraud and illegality
Fraud allegations by each side against the other could not be resolved in judicial review proceedings; however, nothing comes out of an illegality, rendering the registration a nullity for purposes of the application.
Both the respondent and interested party alleged the applicant's documents were forgeries, and the applicant alleged fraud against them. Citing Ratil Patel and Vijay Morjaria, fraud must be proved to a standard above balance of probabilities with particulars, requiring viva voce evidence. Separately, the Macfoy principle meant the impugned registration, being procedurally defective, was a nullity for purposes of the judicial review application.
Legal principles established
#- A land registrar performing statutory registration must consider relevant facts within its own records, including the existence of a competing green card, and afford notice and a hearing to affected parties before registering a transmission
- Where a party approaches the court under constitutional provisions alleging violation of rights, the court may undertake merit review; under Order 53 alone it is confined to process review
- Fraud must be pleaded and proved to a standard higher than a balance of probabilities and cannot be decided in judicial review proceedings without viva voce evidence
Court orders
#- 1.Order of certiorari quashing the decision of the Land Registrar Kwale made on 9th November 2023 to register Swalehe Salimu Kabila as owner of Kwale/Galu Kinondo/416
- 2.Order of certiorari quashing the title deed for Land Parcel No. Kwale/Galu Kinondo/416 issued to Swalehe Salimu Kabila
- 3.Parties to take the dispute to an appropriate forum where the legitimate owner of Land Parcel No. Kwale/Galu Kinondo/416 can be determined with finality
- 4.Proceedings filed pursuant to the court's direction shall not take away any defence a party may have against the same
- 5.Pending such determination, an order of prohibition prohibiting the Land Registrar Kwale from registering any transactions with respect to Kwale/Galu Kinondo/416
- 6.Each party to bear its own costs
- 7.Leave to appeal the judgment granted if required
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Articles 40 and 47 of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Prohibition in the terms sought restricting registration to any person without the express concurrence of the exparte applicant as 'legitimate owner'
The court had not declared the exparte applicant the legitimate owner of the suit property; only a preservation prohibition pending final determination issued
Final determination of ownership of the suit property in the applicant's favour
Fraud allegations and documentary discrepancies must be tested viva voce in an appropriate forum
Costs
Each party to bear its own costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The exparte applicant Patrick Hawkes Karanja Kinyanjui, be granted an order of certiorari to bring into this Honourable court for purpose of being quashed the decision of the respondent, the Land Registrar Kwale made on the 9th of November 2023 to register one Swalehe Salimu Kabila as the owner of Kwale/Galu Kinondo/416
That pending the determination in (c) an order of prohibition to prohibit the respondent, the Land Registrar Kwale from registering any transactions with respect to Kwale/Galu Kinondo/416 hereby issues until the determination in (c) above.
Each party to bear its own costs.
The respondent failed by only focusing on obeying a court order as if he were but just a robot. Which I would say is the unwarranted adherence to a fixed principle which fixed principle is that court orders must be obeyed. He ignored the existence of two green cards.
the exparte applicant has on a balance of probabilities demonstrated to the court that his rights to fair administrative action were violated by the respondents failure to accord the exparte applicant a right to be heard before the registration of the Interested party as the proprietor of the suit property contrary to article 47 of the constitution.
Justice will be best achieved in my view if both sides are heard on merit and the evidence weighed on the scales of justice.
Issues in the judgment
#The name of the interested party is rendered inconsistently within the judgment as 'Swalehe Salimu Kabila' and 'Swalehe Salim Kabila'
The judgment contains typographical errors in dates and statutory references, e.g. 'the year 1923 when he sufiered a stroke' (evidently 2023) and conflicting references to section 79 of the 'Land Registration Act Cap 300' versus the repealed Registered Land Act
Court and case file number are not expressly identified in the text of the judgment supplied
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Land Registrar Kwale; Kabila & another (Interested Parties) (Judicial Review Cause E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1261 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review application (Notice of Motion dated 9th April 2024) - number not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1261/eng@2025-03-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.