Mulinge v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning & 5 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4700 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Extension of time for filing judicial review
Extension allowed where applicant could not, despite due diligence, have known of the decision in time and no prejudice was shown
The decision was made on 29th October 2025 and the application filed 17th December 2025, a delay of about six days beyond the six-week window under Rule 6 of the Fair Administrative Action Rules, 2024. The Applicant explained he only learnt of the decision on about 1st December 2025 through market gossip and obtained a certified copy on 2nd December 2025, borne out by the stamp of the 3rd Respondent. The Respondents showed no prejudice.
Whether the Minister's appeal entertained outside the 60-day statutory period amounted to excess of jurisdiction
The allegation was unsubstantiated because the Applicant produced no memorandum of appeal or official receipt proving the filing date
Relying on section 109 of the Evidence Act, the court held the evidential burden lay on the Applicant to prove the filing was out of time. No memorandum of appeal or official receipt was availed, so the claim of excess of jurisdiction failed.
Procedural impropriety in representation by a person without letters of administration
No procedural impropriety; proceedings before the Minister need not strictly adhere to Civil Procedure Act or Law of Succession, and customary-law representatives are recognised
The court applied Dominic Musei Ikombo v Kyule Makau, holding that under Section 13 of the Land Adjudication Act representatives under African customary law are recognised without letters of administration. The 1st Respondent verified the Interested Party's identity, the Applicant raised no objection during the hearing, and no new issues were heard.
Whether the Applicant was denied a fair hearing
No denial of fair hearing; the Applicant was invited, attended, gave evidence and cross-examined
Applying the audi alteram partem rule and the due process standard requiring reasonable notice with sufficient particulars, the court found from the certified proceedings that the Applicant was invited, attended the hearing on 21st August 2025, and both he and the Interested Party gave evidence. Review lies over process, not merits.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision itself
- The burden of proving a particular fact lies on the person who wishes the court to believe in its existence
- Proceedings before the Minister on appeal under the Land Adjudication Act do not require strict adherence to the Civil Procedure Act or Law of Succession; representatives under African customary law are recognised
Court orders
#- 1.Extension of time for lodging the judicial review application allowed in terms of prayer number 2
- 2.The application dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 7(a), 9(1), 10 and 12 of the Fair Administrative Action Act and Rules 4, 6(1)(2)(2), 11, 13(1) and (2) of the Fair Administrative Action Rules, 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mulinge v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning & 5 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4700 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC JR NO. E016 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4700/eng@2026-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.