Republic v Nairobi District Land Registrar; Kirui (Interested Party); Ramadhan (Ex parte) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E026 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7485 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court dismissed a landowner's attempt to overturn a boundary decision, confirming that Kenya's land registry boundary process was properly followed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the boundary confirmation exercise was ultra vires because it encroached on the Director of Surveys' functions
It was not ultra vires; the Registrar's administrative and quasi-judicial mandate under sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act was properly discharged in coordination with the Survey Department, whose officers acted under the Director's delegated authority under section 3(2) of the Survey Act.
Section 22 of the Survey Act requires registration surveys to be conducted under the Director of Surveys' directions, and section 3(2) allows delegation. The presence of two Government surveyors therefore constituted lawful technical supervision, not usurpation. The 1991 mutation plan was authenticated under section 32 of the Survey Act, and no cancellation under section 33 was shown, reinforcing the presumption of regularity.
Whether the Applicant was denied notice and a fair hearing contrary to Regulation 70 of the Land Regulations, 2017 and Article 47 of the Constitution
No denial was established; attendance sheets showed the Applicant and her surveyor participated in both site visits, satisfying the procedural requirements.
The signed attendance sheets annexed to the affidavits demonstrated the Applicant's participation together with her surveyor at both visits. This satisfied Regulation 70's requirement of written notice and a hearing. Allegations that the Registrar acted under the Interested Party's influence were unsubstantiated, resting only on dissatisfaction with the outcome, which cannot ground judicial review.
Whether Mandamus should issue to compel a fresh boundary confirmation exercise
Mandamus was declined because the statutory duty under sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act had already been lawfully performed, and the Applicant had an alternative statutory remedy under sections 86 and 87 of the Land Registration Act.
Mandamus enforces existing unfulfilled statutory obligations; it cannot compel repetition of a duty lawfully discharged or dictate how discretion is exercised. The request for a different officer presupposed bias, which was not proved. The Applicant's real complaint was with the substance of the findings, an appeal on the merits disguised as judicial review.
Legal principles established
#- A boundary confirmation exercise conducted jointly by the Land Registrar and government surveyors acting under the Director of Surveys' delegated authority is lawful and within jurisdiction under sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act and section 22 of the Survey Act.
- Mandamus does not lie to compel repetition of a statutory duty that has already been lawfully discharged; dissatisfaction with the outcome does not justify a fresh exercise or reallocation to another officer absent proof of bias.
- An unfavourable administrative decision is not, by itself, proof of bias.
- Judicial review cannot be used as an appeal on the merits where an internal statutory remedy, such as sections 86 and 87 of the Land Registration Act, exists.
Court orders
#- 1.The prayer for an order of Certiorari is declined.
- 2.The prayer for an order of Mandamus is declined.
- 3.Costs are awarded to the Interested Party.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act (Cap 26) and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Nairobi District Land Registrar; Kirui (Interested Party); Ramadhan (Ex parte) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E026 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7485 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review Notice of Motion dated 8th May 2025 (ex parte Rehema Wairimu Ramadhan). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7485/eng@2025-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.