Republic v Land Registrar Kwale; Siriako (Ex parte) (Environment and Land Case Judicial Review Application E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5851 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kwale court forced the Land Registrar to process a landowner's title documents but refused to make him personally pay legal costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Notice of Motion dated 7th October 2024 had merit
The application was found to have merit and was partially allowed in respect of Prayers A and B, which the parties had already settled by consensus (the register/green card issue having been resolved).
By the time of the ruling the parties agreed that the prayers for mandamus to open the land register and surrender/return the original title deed had been dealt with, meaning the application was partly settled or compromised. The only surviving issue was costs. The court therefore declared the motion partially allowed as far as Prayers A and B were concerned.
Whether the Land Registrar, S. N. Mokaya, should personally pay the costs of the application
The court declined to order the Land Registrar to personally bear the costs, finding no sufficient basis for the order; each party was to bear its own costs.
The court reviewed Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and authorities on costs as a judicial discretion that ordinarily follows the event. Although the duties demanded of the Registrar were within his statutory mandate under Section 14 of the Land Registration Act, the Registrar's explanation (that the green card had to be signed by the Registrar who prepared the title in Nairobi) was accepted, no malice was shown, the delay was not inordinate, and the duty was ultimately discharged. A personal costs order would be punitive rather than justified.
Legal principles established
#- Costs are in the discretion of the court and follow the event unless the court for good reason otherwise orders; costs will only be ordered against a public officer personally where sufficient grounds are shown.
- A public officer's failure amounting to mere administrative delay, with prompt explanation given and duties ultimately discharged, does not justify an adverse personal costs order.
Court orders
#- 1.That the Notice of Motion application dated 7th October, 2024 be and is hereby found to have merit and thus partially allowed as far as Prayer numbers A and B are concerned.
- 2.That the Prayer number C to have the Land Registrar settle the costs of this application be and is hereby disallowed.
- 3.That each party to bear its own costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction over the Land Registrar (leave granted 4th December 2024), under the Fair Administrative Action framework and the Land Registration Act, with costs governed by Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Land Registrar Kwale; Siriako (Ex parte) (Environment and Land Case Judicial Review Application E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5851 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review (Notice of Motion dated 7th October 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5851/eng@2025-05-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.