Finnlemm Sacco Society Limited v District Land Registrar (Kajiado) & 158 others (Environment and Planning Judicial Review E004 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 1529 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court cancelled a land boundary ruling because affected Kitengela owners were never notified or heard before the decision was made.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Registrar's boundary determination process violated fair administrative action and natural justice
Yes - affected owners were not notified, the surveyor's report omitted one of the three parcels under determination, and the report was therefore flawed
The summons concerned three parcels (44318, 44319 and 44320), but the surveyor's report of 7th June 2023 dealt only with 44319 and 44320 and failed to mention parcel 44318. Section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act required notice and a hearing for persons likely to be adversely affected. The 1st to 157th Interested Parties were not notified despite being affected by the decision. The Respondents did not respond to these claims, and the 158th and 159th Interested Parties could not answer for the makers of the decision.
Whether the omission went to process (reviewable) or merits (not reviewable)
The omissions went to the process, not the merits, and were reviewable
The Interested Parties argued that the complaints went to the merits. The court treated the failure to consider all relevant parcels and to notify affected parties as procedural impropriety, which is squarely within judicial review. The 1st Respondent had jurisdiction under the Land Registration Act to determine boundary disputes, but jurisdiction does not cure failure to observe natural justice.
Whether the 158th and 159th Interested Parties could respond on behalf of the Respondents
They could not; their attempt to answer for the Respondents could not stand
The Respondents filed no submissions or responses. The 158th and 159th Interested Parties attempted to justify the Registrar's decision, but as they were not the makers of the impugned report and ruling, their defence could not stand in place of the Respondents' response.
Legal principles established
#- Where an administrative action is likely to adversely affect the rights of any person, the administrator must give prior and adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard
- Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision
- Prohibition lies for departure from the rules of natural justice as well as for excess or absence of jurisdiction
Court orders
#- 1.Order of certiorari quashing the ruling dated 13th July 2023 by the 1st Respondent on the boundary determination between Kajiado/Kitengela/44319, 44320 and 44318
- 2.Order of certiorari quashing the Surveyor's Report dated 7th June 2023
- 3.Order of prohibition prohibiting the District Land Registrar Kajiado from implementing the ruling dated 13th July 2023
- 4.Order of prohibition prohibiting the Director of Surveys from acting upon and implementing the Surveyor's Report dated 7th June 2023
- 5.Each party to bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23(3)(f), 47, 50 and 159(2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya; Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 of the Fair Administrative Action Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Finnlemm Sacco Society Limited v District Land Registrar (Kajiado) & 158 others (Environment and Planning Judicial Review E004 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 1529 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Judicial Review application re Notice of Motion dated 5th October 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1529/eng@2026-03-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.