Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedJudicial Review Application dated 18th March 2025· [2025] KEELC 7347 (KLR)

Arungah v Chief Land Registrar & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7347 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court (High Court), Machakos
28 October 2025
NMN.A. MATHEKA
1,886 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed a buyer's attempt to force the Land Registrar to rebuild a lost land file, because no refusal decision existed to challenge.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant sought leave for judicial review orders of mandamus compelling the Chief Land Registrar to reconstruct the Land Register File for Land Reference Number 19222, IR Number 696281, to enable registration of a transfer of the property he purchased from Mohamed Bashir Khan under an agreement dated 29th March 2016 and transfer dated 31st August 2017. Stamp duty of Kshs. 500,040 was paid in 2019, but the registry file could not be traced for over four years. The Applicant had issued a Deed of Indemnity dated 30th January 2024, but reconstruction did not occur, and the Respondents allegedly demanded indemnity from the vendor, whose whereabouts are unknown. The Applicant invoked Article 40 of the Constitution and Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act. The Respondents were served but filed no response. Matheka J restated the settled principles that judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits; a review court cannot sit as an appellate court over the decision-maker; remedies are discretionary; and where a clear alternative procedure exists it should be followed. The court found that no decision had been made by the Chief Land Registrar that could be the subject of judicial review - the Applicant was essentially seeking to compel reconstruction of a file, a matter requiring an adjudication of facts and merits. The application was found to lack merit and was dismissed, with no orders as to costs given that it was undefended.

Key legal issues

#
01

Scope of judicial review

Holding

Judicial review examines procedural propriety of decision-making, not merits; the court cannot sit as an appellate court over the decision-maker

Reasoning

Relying on Municipal Council of Mombasa v Republic, Wednesbury and Kunste Hotel, the court restated that review courts examine process - jurisdiction, hearing, relevant considerations - not sufficiency of evidence or correctness of the decision.

p. 2
02

Discretion to grant judicial review remedies

Holding

Judicial review orders are discretionary and not granted as a matter of course

Reasoning

Citing Bluesea Shopping Mall and Halsbury's Laws, the court noted certiorari-type remedies are discretionary and may be refused even where grounds exist, though sparingly.

p. 4
03

Absence of a decision

Holding

Mandamus cannot issue to compel a decision that does not exist; the application fails for want of a reviewable decision

Reasoning

The Registrar had made no decision refusing reconstruction; judicial review is unavailable to adjudicate contested facts or compel merits-based outcomes in the absence of an impugned decision.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The judicial review application is dismissed
  2. 2.No orders as to costs as the application was undefended
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 53 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act Chapter 46 Laws of Kenya

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Arungah v Chief Land Registrar & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7347 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review Application dated 18th March 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7347/eng@2025-10-28

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.