Republic v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning & 3 others; Riungu & 3 others (Interested Parties); Gitonga & another (Exparte Applicants) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4838 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Chuka dismissed landowners' bid to overturn a Minister's land appeal decision, confirming that judicial review challenges process, not evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Minister's decision was illegal or irrational due to the alleged inclusion of parcel number 802
No mix-up or illegality; parcel 802 featured in the applicant's own evidence before the Minister
The court found that the 1st ex-parte applicant expressly tendered oral evidence on parcel 802 before the Minister, and the Minister was required to make findings on whether the parcels were original demarcations or sub-divisions of parcel 799. The finding that they were original demarcations was neither a mix-up nor tainted by illegality or irrationality.
Whether the inclusion of Ruth Wanjira and Dominic Mwangangi breached natural justice
No breach; Mwangangi was a sponsor/representative and 'Ruth' was a typographical error for Faith Wanjiru Kinyua
The court accepted the respondents' explanation that Dominic Mwangangi was retained as sponsor/representative of the interested parties, just as the 1st ex-parte applicant was retained as the 2nd applicant's sponsor. The name 'Ruth' was a typographical error; Faith Wanjiru is a daughter of the late Grace Wanjira, owner of parcel 806.
Whether the court could examine the merits of the Minister's decision
No; the applicants invoked Order 53 and the Law Reform Act without citing any constitutional rights, limiting the court to process review
The applicants did not cite breach of any constitutional article or Bill of Rights provision. Applying Supreme Court precedent, where a suit is brought under Order 53 without claiming constitutional violations, the court confines itself to the process and manner of decision-making, not the merits. The dismissal of the appeal was a matter of evidence the court could not re-evaluate.
Legal principles established
#- A judicial review application under Order 53 and the Law Reform Act, where no constitutional rights violation is claimed, is confined to a review of the process, not the merits of the decision
- An applicant under Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 must plead and demonstrate illegality, procedural impropriety or irrationality
Court orders
#- 1.The judicial review motion dated 23/7/2024 is rejected/dismissed for lack of merit
- 2.The ex-parte applicants shall bear the costs of the suit in accordance with Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning & 3 others; Riungu & 3 others (Interested Parties); Gitonga & another (Exparte Applicants) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4838 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review Motion dated 23/7/2024 (ELC JR, Chuka). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4838/eng@2025-06-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.