Ali v Chief Land Registrar (Judicial Review Application E418 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 18886 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (19 December 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 18886 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) JUDICIAL REVIEW JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION E418 OF 2025 RE ABURILI, J DECEMBER 19, 2025 BETWEEN MOHAMED ABDULLHI ALI ................................................................. APPLICANT AND CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR ............................................................... RESPONDENT RULING 1. The applicant Mohamed Abdullahi Ali, by his chamber summons dated 17/12/2025 under certificate of urgency seeks leave of court to apply for Judicial Review orders of mandamus to compel the Respondent Chief Land Registrar to approve, register and or cause to be gazette the applicant’s Deed Poll application dated 22/4/2025 and lodged on 28/5/2025 seeking change of name from Mohamed Abdullahi Ali to Mohamed Ibrahim Idhow. 2. The applicant also seeks that grant of leave operate as stay, restraining the Respondent from declining, refusing or otherwise failing to process the applicant’s Deed Poll pending the hearing and determination of the substantive motion. He also prays for costs. 3. I have considered the application and the accompanying documents. I am satisfied that it is urgent. I certify the application as urgent. 4. On the prayer for leave to apply, I have perused the grounds in the statutory statement and I am satisfied that the application as intended is arguable. The applicant claims that he has met all the requirements for purposes of registration of the deed poll for change of name but that the Chief Land Registrar has failed to gazette the same and has not given any reasons for such failure. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18886/eng@2025-12-19 1
page 1 of 2
5. I grant leave to the applicant to apply for Judicial Review order of mandamus as sought. The substantive motion to be filed and served within 21 days of today in a fresh substantive Judicial Review Motion. 6. On the prayer for stay, I decline to grant the same as that would amount to issuing final orders at the leave stage noting that Order 53 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules only allows stay in proceedings where prohibition and or certiorari orders are sought. Furthermore, the stay sought would determine the entire mandamus proceedings without interpartes hearing of the substantive motion. 7. Here, the applicant only seeks for mandamus orders. I make no orders as to costs. 8. This file is closed. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 R.E. ABURILI JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18886/eng@2025-12-19 2
page 2 of 2