Republic v Murang'a District Land Surveyor & another; Nyaga & another (Exparte Applicants); Murang'a District Land Registrar (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 1464 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court let government land officials file a late defence in a judicial review case, ruling the constitutional right to a fair hearing outweighed their delay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondents should be heard despite their failure to file a replying affidavit in the judicial review application
Yes. Fair and just reasons were given for the default, and the right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1) outweighed any prejudice to the Exparte Applicants.
The court found the explanation that counsel was in training at the Kenya School of Government and failed to appraise the applicants of the outcome sufficient. It held that parties with a stake in the dispute must be heard, that denial of a right of reply would breach Article 50(1), and that the Exparte Applicants would suffer no prejudice if the motion were allowed. Understanding the practical difficulty in implementing the decree also required hearing the Respondents before final orders.
Whether the decree conflicts with the position on the ground and with other court orders
The court accepted that implementation of the decree may conflict with the ground status and other decisions, justifying that the parties be heard before final orders.
The Respondents contended the decree conflicted with a High Court decision in Kiambu JR No. 3 of 2016 and with related suits (Thika ELC No. 501 of 2017 and Thika ELC No. 214 of 2018) concerning the same land. The court regarded it as important to understand the difficulty of implementing the decree, which would only be possible if the Respondents and other stakeholders were heard before final orders were made.
Legal principles established
#- Article 50(1) of the Constitution requires that parties to a dispute be given a fair hearing, and it would be unjust to deny a party the chance to reply where no prejudice would be suffered by the other side
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 15-3-2024 is allowed in terms of prayers 3 and 4 (leave to file replying affidavit and submissions to the Judicial Review Application dated 24-4-2023)
- 2.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 and Orders 45 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Murang'a District Land Surveyor & another; Nyaga & another (Exparte Applicants); Murang'a District Land Registrar (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 1464 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review Application dated 24-4-2023 (filed 27-4-2023), Murang'a. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1464/eng@2025-03-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.