Republic v Attorney General & another; Mwangi (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of the Late Mwangi Ngure) (Ex parte Applicant); Kiberenge (Represented by Timothy Mugo Karani) (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case Judicial Review Application 14 of 2014) [2025] KEELC 8540 (KLR)

3. The other grounds are set out in the supporting afidavit of Mwangi Ngure. He deponed that he is the owner of Parcel no. 38 in the Mutitu Adjudication Section and that this land was subdivided to create parcel numbers 170, 173 and 223. That at the Arbitration Board, the land in dispute was awarded to the interested party, John Karani Kiberenge represented by Timothy Mugo Karani. He urged that Timothy Mugo Karani lacked locus standi in this case because he had not taken out letters of administration. 4. The Applicant averred that the Land Adjudication Oficer later awarded the land in dispute to him but at the Committee stage, the land was again awarded to John Karani Kiberenge. 5. He appealed to the Minister in Minister’s Appeal Case No. 121 of 1991 where the case was heard and his appeal dismissed. He contended that the District Commissioner relied on the findings of the Arbitration Board and the Committee which were both void for want of natural justice and jurisdiction. He contended that the award of the Minister constituted an error on the face of the record for failing to give adequate reasons. 6. The application was canvassed through written submissions. The Applicant submitted that the orders sought to be quashed were made by the Special District Commissioner on 31/7/2013. He averred that the appellant who tendered evidence before the Special District Commissioner’s Committee was Timothy Mugo Karani and not John Karani Kiberenge, who was already dead and therefore did not participate in the proceedings. It was urged that Timothy Mugo Karani purported to represent the late John Karani Kiberenge without obtaining letters of administration, and that he therefore lacked locus standi to appear or file the appeal on behalf of the Estate. That consequently, the proceedings were null and void for want of legal capacity. 7. Further, he submitted that the Special District Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to cancel the title deed for parcel 38 as the land was registered under the Registered Land Act and the High Court was conferred jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes relating to title to land and later the Environment and Land Court. He submitted that his title could not be defeated on the basis of the Committee’s reasoning that he was suspect as that is not a recognized ground for cancellation of title along the lines of fraud, misrepresentation, illegality, or procedural impropriety. He averred that the cancellation of his title amounted to a violation of his constitutional rights under Article 40 of the Constitution and Section 24 of the Land Registration Act. 8. He averred that the District Commissioner’s award was a nullity and should be quashed. He also submitted that there was an error of law on the face of the record, as the decision of the District Commissioner did not contain adequate reasons for cancelling his title and that it was based on hearsay evidence. He clarified that the initial Notice of Motion was filed in Kerugoya ELC Misc. App No. 25 of 2014 and was later transferred to Embu. He asked the court to remedy the errors of the Special District Commissioner by quashing the proceedings and orders which he averredwere ultra vires and a nullity. 9. The 1st and 2nd Respondents submitted that due process was observed throughout the proceedings before the District Commissioner. They submitted that there was no evidence showing that the Applicant was denied a chance to participate in the appeal or that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice. Regarding the allegation that the Minister's award constituted an error of law on the face of the record due to lack of adequate reasons, the Respondents argued that claim this did not meet the threshold for judicial review, which focuses on the process and not the merits of the decision, as was held in Republic v Kenya National Examinations Council Ex Parte Gathenji Njoroge & Others (1997) eKLR. They submitted that the Minister provided suficient reasons and that there was no manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record to warrant intervention through certiorari. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8540/eng@2025-11-24 2

page 2 of 4

10. On the issue of locus standi, the Respondents submitted that Timothy Mugo Karani was acting in a representative capacity for John Karani Kiberenge, who was the lawful appellant in the proceedings. They argued that there was nothing improper or unlawful in a party being represented especially when an objection was not raised during the hearing. They relied on Law Society of Kenya v Commissioner of Lands & Others (2001) eKLR to argue that locus standi requires a party to have suficient interest, and averred that Timothy Mugo Karani represented John Karani Kiberenge and was not acting in his personal capacity. They contended that locus standi must be established by the party seeking redress, which they contend the Applicant failed to do. 11. The Interested Party submitted that he was the son of the John Karani Kiberenge who was the original claimant in respect of the suit land. He submitted that the Minister is empowered under Section 29(1) of the Land Adjudication Act to hear and determine appeals from aggrieved persons regarding land adjudication decisions, and that the Minister’s decision is final to prevent undue delays and resolve disputes conclusively. He submitted that judicial review was primarily concerned with the legality and fairness of the decision making process rather than the merits of the decision itself. That in this case, the court should be concerned with whether the Minister adhered to the prescribed procedures and exercised authority within the legal framework rather than the substance of the decision. 12. He submitted that judicial review applications must be filed within six months of the decision being challenged as per Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and that courts have no jurisdiction to extend this period. He averred that the award being contested is dated 31/7/2014 whereas the instant application was filed on 14/4/2015, eight months later meaning it was filed beyond the six month limitation period and as such, it is time barred and ought to be dismissed. The record shows that the application seeking leave to file the substantive motion was filed on 15/1/2015 while the decision sought to be challenged was made on 31/7/2013. This issue was determined by this court 26/5/2014 when it found that the application was filed within time. 13. Further, he submitted that the Applicant waived the right to challenge locus standi by failing to raise it at the earliest opportunity before the Committee. He urged that the application should be dismissed. 14. The issue for determination is whether this court should grant the judicial review orders sought by the Applicant. The scope of judicial review was set out in Municipal Council of Mombasa v Republic & Umoja Consultants Ltd. (Civil Appeal 185 of 2001) [2002] KECA 8 (KLR) where the court stated that judicial review was concerned with the decision making process, and not with the merits of the decision itself. That the court is concerned with the process leading to the making of the decision, in terms of how the decision was arrived at; whether those who made the decision had the power or jurisdiction; and whether the persons afiected by the decision heard before it was made. The other considerations are whether in making the decision, decision maker took into account relevant matters or irrelevant matters. 15. The Applicant’s grievance relates to the outcome and the weight given to certain evidence by the Special District Commissioner in the decision dated 31/7/2013 in Minister’s Land Appeal Case No. 154 of 2001 where the suit land was awarded to the late John Karani Kiberenge represented by Timothy Mugo Karani. In essence, that amounts to challenging the merits of the District Commissioner’s decision yet judicial review is limited to the decision making process itself and not the merits of the decision. The Applicant has also not established that he was denied an opportunity to be heard before the District Commissioner or subjected to any procedural unfairness amounting to a breach of natural justice. 16. The other point that the Applicant complains of is that Timothy Mugo Karani who represented the appellant in the appeal, the late John Karani Kiberenge did not have the locus standi because he had not taken out letters of administration. It has previously been held that it is not mandatory for a dead party https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8540/eng@2025-11-24 3

page 3 of 4

to be formally substituted in an adjudication case as happens in civil proceedings by taking out letters of administration. In Dominic Musei Ikombo v Kyule Makau [2019] KECA 482 (KLR), where the court observed that proceedings conducted under the Land Adjudication Act were not strictly speaking akin to proceedings under the Civil Procedure Act. That the District commissioner acting on behalf of the Minister had wide latitude to conduct the proceedings in a manner that met the substantive ends of justice. 17. Further, that Section 13 of the Land Adjudication Act talked of a guardian or representative but does not refer to legal representatives. That since the strict rules of civil litigation with regard to capacity to sue did not apply to proceedings before the committee or the Minister, it was not necessary for a person appearing on behalf of a family or clan where the head of the family or clan had died to possess letters of administration in respect of a deceased claimant. Base on this, the parties had locus standi to appear before the adjudication committee. 18. The Applicant complains that the Special District Commissioner lacked the jurisdiction to determine the appeal because the suit land was registered land under the repealed Registered Land Act. That argument is not persuasive because the Minister’s decision arose from the ongoing adjudication proceedings. The land in question was therefore not registered land at the material time, and was subject to resolution of disputes arising from the adjudication process. 19. The application lacks merit and is dismissed with costs to the Respondents and the Interested Party. DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT EMBU THIS 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025. K. BOR JUDGE In the presence of: Mr. John Ndana for the Applicant Ms. Dida Ali holding brief for Mr. R. Mutiso for the Interested Party Diana Kemboi- Court Assistant No appearance for the Respondents https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8540/eng@2025-11-24 4

page 4 of 4