Republic v Principal Secretary, Ministy of Lands, Housing & Urban Development & 7 others; Kodota & another (Ex parte Applicants) (Suing on Their Behalf and on Behalf of 24 others as Per the Attached List) (Judicial Review Application E002 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3612 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court granted permission to challenge a land decision but refused to freeze the status quo because the supporting evidence was six months old.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant should be granted leave as sought in the amended application dated 3/6/2026
- 2.Whether the leave granted should operate as a stay
Key legal issues
#Grant of leave to apply for judicial review
Leave granted as sought in prayers 2, 3 and 5 (as amended orally)
The court considered the application dated 3/6/2026, as amended orally on the date of the ruling, and found it fit to grant leave. No detailed reasoning is set out in the short ex-tempore ruling; the judge simply recorded satisfaction that leave was deserved.
Whether leave should operate as a stay
Leave granted does not operate as a stay; stay refused
The judge held that the material relied on was stale and that no evidence of events between the date of the letter and the date of the order had been availed, so the court could not assess the consequences of a stay. On that basis no order of stay was shown to be deserved.
Legal principles established
#- Leave for judicial review may be granted at the leave stage even where the application is amended orally before the court
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted as sought in prayer No. 2, prayer No. 3, and prayer No. 5 as amended
- 2.Leave not to operate as a stay - no stay order issued
- 3.Substantive Judicial Review Notice of Motion to be filed and served within 21 days from the date of the order on all Interested Parties and the Respondents, with an affidavit of service filed
- 4.All interested parties and respondents to file their replying affidavits within 14 days of service
- 5.The matter to be brought up early for the attention of the court, with a copy of the ruling attached to the substantive judicial review notice of motion
- 6.The file to be closed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (leave stage; specific statutory provision not cited in the ruling)
Relief refused
#Prayer that the leave granted operate as a stay
The letter relied on in support of the stay was stale and no evidence of intervening events was provided to show the consequences of a stay order
Costs
No costs order made in the ruling
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
I have considered the application dated 3/6/2026 as amended orally today and I find that it is fit to grant the applicant leave, and I therefore grant leave as sought in prayers No. 2, and 3, and also prayer no 5 as amended.
No order of stay has therefore been shown to be deserved by the applicant.
The substantive Judicial Review Notice of Motion shall be filed and served within 21 days from the date of this order on all Interested Parties and the Respondents and an affidavit of service shall be filed.
Issues in the judgment
#The ruling does not state the names of the parties or the case number; parties are referred to generically as 'the applicant', 'Respondents' and 'Interested Parties'
The ruling does not specify which statutory or constitutional provision confers the judicial review jurisdiction invoked
The text is paginated ('2') and appears to be an excerpt; no details of the underlying claim or the letter dated 9/12/2025 are set out
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Principal Secretary, Ministy of Lands, Housing & Urban Development & 7 others; Kodota & another (Ex parte Applicants) (Suing on Their Behalf and on Behalf of 24 others as Per the Attached List) (Judicial Review Application E002 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3612 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3612/eng@2026-06-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.