Republic v County Land Registrar & 9 others; Mlambo & another (Suing as the defunct Chairman and Treasurer respectively of the Executive Committee of Kishamba 'B' Group Ranch) (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Planning Judicial Review E001 of 2025) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 1827 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Taita Taveta community land registration challenge failed because the applicants offered no proof of illegality and simultaneously appealed the very judgment they wanted enforced.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the judicial review proceedings are res judicata in light of the judgment in Voi ELCLC No. 4 of 2024
The plea of res judicata fails because the application challenges administrative conduct arising after the judgment, constituting a fresh cause of action
The court applied section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and its four elements, but found that although some issues overlapped with the earlier suit, the application was triggered by post-judgment events during implementation. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in John Florence Maritime Services, it held that subsequent events giving rise to a fresh grievance constitute a distinct cause of action, so the proceedings were properly before the court.
Whether certiorari should issue to quash the Certificate of Registration of Kishamba 'B' Community
Certiorari refused; the registration complied with the court's judgment and no illegality or procedural impropriety was proven
The Registrar received a Form CLA application with the community's constitution and a member list, within the 90-day timeline set by the court's judgment. No objection to the name was demonstrated and the applicants failed to substantiate claims of unilateral action, exclusion, lack of participation or statutory breach. The threshold for certiorari was therefore not met.
Whether an order of prohibition should issue against the scheduled meeting
Prohibition refused; the meeting had already been held on 19th December 2025 in compliance with the judgment
Prohibition is prospective and pre-emptive; it cannot undo what has already been done, that being the province of certiorari. The evidence showed the meeting was convened pursuant to the judgment and no evidence showed it was held unlawfully or by unauthorised persons. Granting prohibition without quashing the completed act would be inefficacious.
Whether an order of mandamus should issue compelling the Respondents to discharge statutory obligations
Mandamus refused; applicants lacked good faith having appealed and sought stay of the same judgment, and no specific statutory breach was shown
The court noted the applicants filed an appeal (Mombasa COACA No. E204/E208 of 2025) seeking stay of execution of the judgment while simultaneously seeking mandamus to enforce it. Approbating and reprobating, they did not come with clean hands. Further, they failed to demonstrate with specificity the statutory duties breached or resulting prejudice, so no basis for mandamus was laid.
Legal principles established
#- Res judicata does not apply where post-judgment events give rise to a fresh cause of action, such as subsequent administrative conduct challenged by judicial review
- Prohibition is a prospective remedy and cannot issue against a decision or act already completed
- A litigant cannot approbate and reprobate by challenging a judgment on appeal while simultaneously seeking its enforcement by mandamus
- Certiorari will issue only where an administrative act is without jurisdiction, procedurally unfair or otherwise illegal, on credible evidence
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 3rd December 2025 is dismissed.
- 2.Each party to bear own costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 53 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v County Land Registrar & 9 others; Mlambo & another (Suing as the defunct Chairman and Treasurer respectively of the Executive Committee of Kishamba 'B' Group Ranch) (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Planning Judicial Review E001 of 2025) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 1827 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Judicial Review Application – Notice of Motion dated 3rd December 2025 (not stated on judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1827/eng@2026-03-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.