Republic v Deputy County Commisioner - Kilungu & 5 others; Yulu (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E002 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4718 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Makueni dismissed a landowner's judicial review challenge, confirming that government land adjudication decisions can only be overturned for process failures, not disagreements over the outcome.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Ex-parte Applicant was accorded a fair hearing before the 1st Respondent
A fair hearing was accorded: the Applicant was present, cross-examined witnesses and was heard
The court found the Applicant was present at the hearing of his appeal and that both parties were given equal opportunity to cross-examine each other and their witnesses. The complaint about the 1998 clan meeting was spurious since the clan proceedings were alluded to by both sides in oral evidence and the 1st Respondent considered them.
Whether the 1st Respondent acted ultra vires, illegally or irrationally
The 1st Respondent had jurisdiction under Section 29 of the Land Adjudication Act and acted lawfully
The court held there was no error of law in the decision-making process. The 1st Respondent had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, considered relevant considerations including the 1998 clan proceedings, and did not ignore material evidence. The judicial review thresholds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety were not met.
Whether the application was a proper vehicle to challenge the merits of the decision
No; the application was an appeal on the merits disguised as judicial review
The court, applying Municipal Council of Mombasa v Republic, held that a judicial review court may not act as an appellate court over the decision-maker by examining the sufficiency of evidence. The Applicant's real grievance was with the merits of the 1st Respondent's findings, which is outside the province of judicial review.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision itself
- An applicant for judicial review must show the decision is tainted with illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety
- The audi alteram partem rule does not require a full adversarial hearing; procedural fairness depends on the context
Court orders
#- 1.The application is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Deputy County Commisioner - Kilungu & 5 others; Yulu (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E002 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4718 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Judicial Review Application (amended Notice of Motion dated 29th September, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4718/eng@2026-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.