Fredrick Gituma John (suing On His Own Behalf and On Behalf of 190 Bachelor of Technology In Land Surveying Degree Holders From Technical University of Kenya) v Land Surveyors Board

of the respondent, to disallow the applicant, and others, who hold Bachelor of Technology in Land Surveying degrees from the Technical University of Kenya, from licensing. 3. The prohibition order is to bar the respondent from implementing the decision to disallow the applicant, and others, who hold Bachelor of Technology in Land Surveying degrees from the Technical University of Kenya, from sitting for the Land Law Examination and licensing. The mandamus order is sought to compel the respondent to allow the applicant, and the others, who had applied for the Land Law Examination, and had met the threshold, including holding a Bachelor of Technology in Land Surveying degrees from the Technical University of Kenya, to sit the Land Law Examination. 4. The grounds, upon which the Motion is premised, are set out on the face of the application, as well as on the statutory statement and the verifying affidavits. The grounds, on the face, of the application are really unnecessary, given that the Motion rides on the statutory statement, as filed at the leave stage, or as amended thereafter, and on the affidavit that verifies that statement. 5. There is an amended statutory statement, dated 6th February 2026. It sets out the same prayers narrated in the Motion. It also sets out the grounds upon which those prayers are made. These grounds read more like statements of fact. It is averred that the applicant is a holder Bachelor of Technology in Land Surveying degree from the Technical University of Kenya. On 29th August 2025, the respondent published a notice, calling for applicants for the Land Law Examination, to be administered by the Kenya Institute of Surveying and Mapping, on 4th December 2025. Another notice, vide Gazette Notice No. 12788 of 1st September 2025, invited qualified candidates, interested in sitting for the Land Law Examination, to formally make the application, by 29th October 2025. Candidates were required to avail copies of their degree certificates, proof of payment and of the requisite 2 year-practical experience in land surveying. 6. It is averred that the respondent convened a meeting, on 7th November 2025, where the decisions, the subject of the application were made. The respondent published, on its website, the degree programmes that would lead to the licensing, and the Bachelor of Technology in Land Surveying degree was not one of them. The notice indicated that the respondent was reviewing curricula of the programmes, offered by various universities, by dint of section 11(b) of the Survey Act, Cap 299, Laws of Kenya. 7. It is averred that the respondent communicated that decision, to bar the applicant, and the others, on 10th November 2025, while the examination was due on 4th December 2025. It is averred that the respondent should have raised concerns regarding the programme, with the 2nd interested party, prior to accreditation of the programme. It is averred that the letters, barring them, did not contain particulars of the reasons for the decision by the respondent, except asserting that the applicants had not met the approved criteria, which had not been disclosed by the respondent, until a demand letter was served upon it. The said demand letter and notice to sue was dated 13th November 2025, asking the respondent to reverse the decision. 8. It is averred that the respondent did reply to the demand, indicating that it was in the process of developing a policy on evaluation and recognition of university programmes for registration as licensed surveyors, and that policy had been shared with the 2nd interested party. It is argued that the said policy was not in place, and subjecting the applicant, and the others, to a non-existent policy, was unlawful and unprocedural. It is also averred that there was no proof that the 2nd interested party had been engaged by the respondent, in 2013, on its decision to accredit the Bachelor of Technology in Land Surveying degree programme to be offered by the 1st interested party. It is asserted that the Bachelor of Technology in Land Surveying degree was not an engineering degree, and was not regulated by the Engineers Act, Cap 530, Laws of Kenya or the Engineering Technology Act, Cap 530A, Laws of Kenya. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5456/eng@2026-04-29 2

page 2 of 13

9. It is averred that, in the absence of a policy, the law cannot apply retrospectively, for it can only apply progressively, taking into account constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms that are likely to be infringed, threatened, denied or violated. It is pointed out that section 12 of the Survey Act, Cap 299, Laws of Kenya, provides that a Bachelors degree in Surveying, from an accredited university, is the only prerequisite requirement for an applicant to sit for the Land Law Examination. It is submitted that the applicant and the others all held Bachelor of Technology degrees in Land Surveying, awarded by the 1st interested party, at different times, from 2014 to date. It is averred that the said degree programme was accredited by the 2nd interested party, and the respondent had previously administered the Land Law examination, and had been licensing land surveyors holding Bachelor of Technology in Land Surveying. 10. It is asserted that it was the mandate of the 2nd interested party to review curriculum for all programmes offered by all universities in Kenya, except where that mandate has been delegated to some other statutory body. It is argued that accreditation of the Land Surveying programmes has not been delegated to the respondent by the 2nd interested party. It is further submitted that the mandate, given to the respondent, by section 9 of the Survey Act, does not include accreditation of the Land Surveying programme. It is further argued that the criteria for determining whether applicants had pursued suitable courses in surveying and mathematics was not anchored in the Survey Act or the Survey Regulations of 1994, to determine whether a candidate has pursued suitable courses in land surveying and mathematics. It is argued that the purported accreditation is arbitrary, ill-informed, in bad faith and not backed by any legal provision. 11. It is further argued that production of a university degree, whose curriculum had been approved by the 2nd interested party, was sufficient proof that the applicant, and the others, has met the minimum qualifications required for administration of the land law examination and licensing. It is submitted that the respondent had usurped the authority of the 2nd interested party, and had purported to review the curriculum of the 1st interested party, which was ultra vires the powers granted to it. The actions of the respondent, of rejecting the application by the applicant, and the others, was contrary to Article 47 of the Constitution, which grants everyone a fair administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. 12. The amended statutory statement is supported by a verifying affidavit, sworn on 6th February 2026, by the applicant. It largely regurgitates the contents of the amended statutory statement, word for word. The only fresh thing about it are the documents annexed to it as exhibits. 13. Several documents are exhibited in the applications, in support of the quest. There is a copy of the circular, dated 29th August 2025, and the letter of even date. There is also a copy of Gazette Notice No. 12788, which is a replica of the letter dated 29th August 2025. There is a copy of the letter dated 10th November 2025. There is a copy of a degree certificate, issued by the 1st interested party, to the applicant, for a Bachelor of Technology degree in Surveying Technology. There is a copy of the demand letter, dated 13th November 2025, and a notice of intention to sue, of even date. There is a document from the respondent, titled “Accreditation Criteria & Recognition of Surveying Degree Programmes for Purposes of Boards Examination and Licensing.” There is a copy of the response, to the demand letter, addressed to the Advocates for the applicant, dated 17th November 2025. There is a copy of a document titled “Academic Programmes offered in Chartered Universities in Kenya.” There is a bundle of consents, executed by various individuals, to support a petition against the respondent. 14. Upon being served with the Motion, the respondent has filed a replying affidavit, sworn on 14th March 2026, by Mr. Kipkemboi Roy, the secretary of the respondent. He points out that the mandate of the respondent emanates from section 7 of the Survey Act, and that the applicant was mispresenting https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5456/eng@2026-04-29 3

page 3 of 13

what that Act provided. He states that the qualifications for the examination, for the purposes of being licenced, are governed by section 12 of the Survey Act. It is averred that the mere holding of a degree qualification was not enough, nor did not guarantee one of an automatic licence, for one has to strictly comply with what is required by sections 9(a)(b), 11(a)(b) and 12(f) of the Survey Act. 15. It is averred that the respondent did issue a circular on 29th August 2025, invited qualified applicants to apply for the land law examination, to be conducted on 4th December 2025, with a deadline of receipt of applications of 28th October 2025. A letter was also released on 29th August 2025, detailing the eligibility criteria, according to section 11 of the Survey Act. The applicant placed an application, which was subjected to the criteria under section 11(a)(b) of the Survey Act and regulation 13 of the Act, but it failed to meet the same. A communication was made to him, vide a letter dated 10th November 2025. 16. Several documents are attached to the affidavit. There is the circular dated 29th August 2025. There is the letter dated 29th August 2025. There is also the letter dated 10th November 2025, addressed to the applicant. 17. Only 1 interested party has filed papers, and that is the 3rd interested party. His affidavit was sworn on 25th February 2026. He is one of the graduates from the 1st interested party, with a Bachelor of Technology in Land Surveying degree, from the 2015 cohort. He sat a professional land law examination, administered by the respondent in 2021, and passed. He avers that the respondent had been administering that professional course, to Bachelor of Technology in Land Surveying degree graduates, from the 1st interested party, since inception of the programme in 2013. He argues that the respondent has no existing policy on accreditation and recognition of university programmes, and the alleged draft policy could not be implemented at draft stage. He asserts that the mandate, to accredit university programmes, lay with the 2nd interested party, and not the respondent. He has attached a copy of his certificate of Bachelor of Technology in Land Surveying degree of 2015, and a copy of a letter from the respondent, dated 19th October 2022, advising that he had passed the land law examination for 2021. 18. The applicant filed a further affidavit in response to that filed by the respondent. He argues that his application ought to have been subjected to section 11(a) of the Survey Act only, for section 12(1)(c) of the Survey Act provided for some exemptions, applicable to holders of a degree in land surveying, upon having sat for the land law examination. He avers that the eligibility criteria was a degree in land surveying, with 2-year practical experience, borne in the statutory declaration form “A.” He asserts that his case does not fall under section 11(b) of the Survey Act, but sections 11(a) and 12(1)(c). He asserts that the exclusion of graduates from the 1st interested party was on the basis of a draft policy. He argues that Regulation 13 of the Survey Regulations, 1994, merely elaborates on section 11 of the Survey Act, it does not add more requirements. He states that there has been no citation of the law which points to differentiation degrees in land surveying. 19. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions, filed by both sides. 20. The written submissions by the applicant, dated 6th March 2026, identify 5 issues for determination, whether the decision challenged was attained by illegality, whether it violated the right to fair administrative action, whether the applicant had a legitimate expectation to sit for the land law examination and to be licenced, whether the decision was irrational unreasonable and procedurally improper, and whether the judicial review remedies are available. His written submissions are aligned to those issues, and are supported by appropriate statutory provisions and case law. 21. On its part, in its written submissions, dated 16th March 2026, the respondent submits on 2 separate matters. The first is on its preliminary objection, that the cause was representative, yet there had been https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5456/eng@2026-04-29 4

page 4 of 13

no compliance with Order 1 rule 13(2)(2)(b)(c)(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The second relates to the Motion itself. It is averred that the same is designed as proceedings by a sole applicant, as there is no authority from the other individuals on whose benefit it is purportedly brought. On the substance, it is submitted that the application by the applicant was declined, because he had not provided evidence that he had practiced land surveying and did not meet the requisite academic qualifications, being in land surveying and mathematics. It is also submitted that the respondent had not provided proof that he was qualified and had made a complete application. 22. The starting point should be with the procedure, given that the preliminary point turns on that. Judicial Review proceedings are sui generis. They are peculiar or unique. They are not ordinary civil proceedings. Although Order 53 is located in the Civil Procedure Rules, the process it sets out is selfsufficient, in terms of the pleadings to be filed, service of the court process and the hearing and disposal of the matter. Judicial Review proceedings are strictly governed by Order 53; they do not depend on any other provision in the Civil Procedure Rules. That then means that the provisions in Order 1 rule 13(2)(a)(c)(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules, do not apply to proceedings brought under the Order 53. 23. The parties, that are envisaged under Order 53, are the ex parte applicant, as the mover of the motion, and the respondent, as the party against whom the orders are sought, or whose decision is impugned. Other parties, who may be affected, are added as peripheral parties, who do not have to play an active role in the matter, usually known as interested parties. They may enrich the proceedings by filing evidence that could guide the court, or making submissions on certain aspects of the law, to assist the court. They may also opt to remain inactive, and act as mere observers. 24. The other persons, that the applicant claims to represent, could not come in under Order 1 rule 13(2) (a)(c)(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Neither could they come in by way of the authority to sue that they purportedly executed. The orders sought not only affect them, they would be the principal beneficiaries, and they should have been added to the claim as applicants, or, at the very least as interested parties. As it is, in the current frame of the pleadings, they are invisible. Their names do not appear in the pleadings, and they are, for all practical purposes, not parties to the cause. 25. What is more is that no evidence has been exhibited to establish that those others were graduates from the first interested party, holding a qualification similar to that held by the ex parte applicant. There is also no evidence that they had made applications, to the respondent, similar to that made by the ex parte applicant, and that their applications met a similar fate. There is also no indication, in the consent forms, allegedly signed by them, that they were meant to be filed in this cause. The said consent forms are framed as signature forms for a petition against the respondent. These proceedings were not commenced by way of a petition, at the constitutional court, but as judicial review proceedings. Judicial review is very restricted, very targeted, and not as broad as a constitutional petition, where those contemplated consents could have worked very well. 26. Does that affect the validity or viability of the cause? No. It does not. The applicant has filed all the relevant processes, and, based on them, the court should be able to make a determination on the merits of the case, with respect to what he complains about, regarding how his application was handled. 27. The remit of a court, exercising Judicial Review jurisdiction, has been discussed in a number of cases, among them Municipal Council of Mombasa vs. Republic, Umoja Consultants Limited [2002] eKLR (Kwach, Omolo & O’Kubasu, JJA), where the court discussed what ought to be considered when judicial review orders are sought. It should be about the process leading up to the making of the impugned decision. That would naturally raise the issue of jurisdiction, to make the decision, as the first criteria. The next would be issues around natural justice, whether the parties affected had been given an opportunity to be heard prior to the decision-making. The issue of what was considered, and https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5456/eng@2026-04-29 5

page 5 of 13

an assessment of whether what was considered was relevant. It would not be a review of the merits of the decision, but of the process of the decision-making. 28. Pastoli vs. Kabale Local Government Council & others [2008] 2 EA 300 (Kasule, J) brought into the matrix consideration of issues around illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. These summarise jurisdiction, natural justice and fair administrative action. 29. The certiorari order issues to quash a decision made without jurisdiction, or attended by or tainted with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. The mandamus order is available where a statutory or public duty exists, and it issues to enforce that duty. See Kenya National Examinations Council vs. Republic Ex Parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 others [1997] eKLR (Omolo, Tunoi & Shah, JJA). Prohibition issues to bar action or conduct that is tainted with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. 30. The pleadings, in judicial review proceedings, take the form of the statutory statement. It is trite that parties are bound by their pleadings. Therefore, this determination shall be limited to what is pleaded in the statutory statement filed herein, as elaborated in the verifying affidavit, and the other affidavits filed by the ex parte applicant, the respondent and the 3rd interested party. 31. 4 orders are sought in the amended statutory statement, namely 2 certiorari orders, prohibition and mandamus. These proceedings are premised on the Common Law remedy of judicial review, rather than the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, Cap 7L, Laws of Kenya, hence they were not commenced by way of a constitutional petition or an originating motion. The principal pleading, for the purposes of Judicial Review, is the statutory statement. 32. The 4 orders are sought on the basis of 2 documents, a letter, dated 10th November 2025, and the other dated 20th January 2026. The first communicated the decision by the respondent not to approve his application for the land law examination, and the other gives a detailed criteria for the rejection of the application by the applicant. 33. What I deduce from the material placed before me is that the respondent put up a notice, inviting prospective candidates to apply for the Land Law Examination for 2025, which was scheduled for 4th December 2025. That notice is exhibited in annextures FGJ-1, FGJ-2 and FGJ-3 in the verifying affidavit. 34. Of note, in that set of documents, is the application guidelines for the Land Law Examination 2025, which gives details of what that application was to comprise of. Eligibility was for candidates who had complied with section 11 of the Survey Act, those who had passed the Final Part 1 of the East African Land Survey Examination and those exempted, supported by relevant documentation. A duly filled Form A of the Survey Act, with respect to the required 2 years or more experience in land surveying. A copy of the national identity card. Copies of the relevant academic certificates. The relevant examination fee. The application letter addressed to the secretary. The ex parte applicant has not attached a copy of the application that he made, if at all, with the attachments required. 35. In the letter, dated 10th November 2025, the respondent informed the ex parte applicant that his application had not been successful, for upon review of his academic qualifications, it was established that he had not met the requirements of section 11 of the Survey Act, which mandated the respondent to consider only such courses of study in land surveying and mathematics, as may be approved for purposes of the examination and licencing. It was said that he had not met the approved criteria. 36. The ex parte applicant then wrote a letter to the respondent, demanding to be furnished with the minutes of the meeting which had made the decision to decline his application, or not to recognise https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5456/eng@2026-04-29 6

page 6 of 13

the Bachelor of Technology in Land Surveying, as a qualification for licensing of land surveyors. It was also demanded that the respondent reverse the decision not to recognise that degree for the purposes of licensing. 37. The letter, of 17th November 2025, from the respondent, was a response to that demand letter. It was pointed out that the minutes were not available, as they were yet to be confirmed at the next meeting of the respondent. It was explained that the respondent relied on material published by the 1st interested party, which identified the Bachelor of Technology as a technologist qualification, as opposed to Bachelor of Engineering, which was a professional qualification. Based on that, the Bachelor of Technology degree in Land Surveying was characterised as a technologist qualification, and, therefore, not a professional degree for purposes of licensing under sections 11 and 12 of the Survey Act. That criteria was used to review the applications for the 2025 Land Law examination. It was pointed out that gaps were identified in certain professional areas, such as geodesy, advanced mathematics, advanced surveying and professional competencies required for independent practice as a licensed surveyor 38. It was also indicated that the respondent was developing a policy on evaluation and recognition of university programmes for registration as a licensed surveyor. The draft policy was said to have had been shared with the Commission for University Education and the universities, for comments, before finalisation, and that a structured bridging and professional conversion pathways were also proposed for Bachelor of Technology graduates, who wished to upgrade into the professional stream, to be eligible of licensure. 39. My understanding is that the application was rejected as the ex parte applicant was said not to have been qualified under sections 11 and 12 of the Survey Act. What do these provisions say?. 40. Before I get to sections 11 and 12 of the Survey Act, I should, perhaps, point out that the dispute is largely about licensing of surveyors, that is those who would be entitled to be regarded as professional and expert surveyors, who may practice as such, and whose works and reports would be deemed to carry weight, before a court of law, and for registration purposes, and elsewhere. Curiously, the Survey Act does not have any provisions on qualifications of surveyors, for licensing purposes. Section 10 provides for eligibility, but then states that the qualifications are provided for elsewhere in the Act. 41. Section 10 states: “ “ 10. Persons eligible to be licensed No person shall be licensed under this Act unless he is qualified as hereinafter provided; and every person who is so qualified shall be entitled, on payment of the prescribed fee, to be granted a licence by the Board in the prescribed form.” 42. However, the qualifications that section 10 talks about are not provided for anywhere else in the Survey Act. Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 relate to some examination or examinations that the respondent is required to conduct, for the purpose of the licencing. They are not about qualifications of surveyors, and they do not even state the nature of the examinations to be conducted, and the circumstances that would necessitate them to be conducted. Section 15 is about conditions precedent to issuance of a licence, to authorise the person to practice. This provision talks about minimum age, passing of an examination set by the respondent and compliance with the provisions of the Survey Act. Section 16 is about maintenance of a register of licensed surveyors. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5456/eng@2026-04-29 7

page 7 of 13

43. Be that as it may. Section 11 provides as follows: “ 11. Persons entitled to be examined No person shall be examined for a licence to practise as a surveyor unless— 44. (a) he has previously practised land surveying regularly and faithfully for such period as the Board may require, in the Survey of Kenya or with a licensed surveyor in Kenya or in one of the countries approved for the purposes of paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section 12 of this Act, and he produces either a statutory declaration from the Director or from such licensed surveyor, as the case may be, in such form as may be prescribed, or such other evidence as may satisfy the Board, that he has so served for the period required by the Board; or (b) he satisfies the Board that he has pursued suitable courses of study in land surveying and mathematics and he has had practical experience in land surveying.” Section 11 makes mention of section 12, and I should, therefore, set it out in verbatim, before I go on to discussion. Section 12 states as follows:. “ 12. Exemptions (1) Any person who— (a) was duly registered as a licensed surveyor in accordance with the provisions of any written law relating to the registration of surveyors in force at any time before the commencement of this Act; or (b) is the holder of an East African Land Survey Certificate; or (c) has taken a degree in land surveying from a university recognized by the Board, passed the Kenya land law examination and has had not less than two years practical experience with the survey of Kenya or with a licensed surveyor to the satisfaction of the Board; or (d) is the holder of a licence to practice as a surveyor in any country which the Cabinet Secretary may, by notice in the Gazette, approve; or (e) is the holder of the qualification of Fellow or Professional Associate of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors in subdivision V (Land Surveying); or (f) has complied with the provisions of paragraph (b) of section 11 of this Act, shall, upon the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5456/eng@2026-04-29 8

page 8 of 13

production of such evidence thereof as may be prescribed including evidence of full membership of the Institution of Surveyors of Kenya (Chapter of Land Surveyors), and subject to subsection (2) be exempted from the whole examination or from examination in any subject, in accordance with the directions of the Board. (2) A person holding any of the qualifications mentioned in paragraph (d) or (e) of this section, shall not be exempted from examination unless— (a) he satisfies the Board that he has had field experience in land surveying: and (b) he carries out to the satisfaction of the Board, a trial survey; and (c) he satisfies the Board that he is capable of conducting land surveys in accordance with the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made thereunder.” PARA 45. Section 11 of the Survey Act talks about those who are entitled to examined for a licence to practice as surveyors, and it is worded in the negative, that no person is to be examined, unless they satisfy some criteria. That criterion is alternate. 46. The first criteria, in section 11(a), is about experience, that is the person must had had previously practiced land surveying regularly and faithfully for a period required by the respondent. That practice or experience must have been either with the Survey of Kenya, or with a licensed surveyor in Kenya, or in any of the countries approved under section 12(1)(d) of the Act. The evidence or proof of that practice or experience must be placed before the respondent, in the form of a statutory declaration, from the person under whom the practice was done, whether the Director of Survey of Kenya or licenced surveyor, in the form prescribed, or in such other form as the respondent may require. 47. The second, the alternative to the first, is stated in section 11(b), and it is about the person satisfying the respondent that he has taken suitable courses of study in land surveying and mathematics, and he has had practical experience in land surveying. Under this provision, there is no indication of the nature of the evidence required, of the courses of study and of the practical experience. 48. Section 12 of the Act is about exemptions from the examinations that section 11 of the Act provides for. That would suggest that applicants, for licensing as surveyors, need not sit the examinations contemplated in section 9(a). Those exempted, under section 12(1), are in 6 categories. Category 1 is of those who are already registered as licensed surveyors under the law which preceded the enactment of the Survey Act. That would apply to those licenced as surveyors before this Act commenced in 1961. Category 2 is of persons who hold the East African Land Survey Certificate. Category 3 is of persons who have a degree in land surveying from a university recognised by the respondent, have passed the land law examination and have not less than 2 years practical experience, either with the Survey of Kenya or with a licensed surveyor. 49. Category 4 is of a holder of a licence to practice as a surveyor, issued in another country, which the relevant Cabinet Secretary may approve vide a Gazette Notice. Category 5 is that of holders of the qualification of Fellow or Professional Associate of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors in https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5456/eng@2026-04-29 9

page 9 of 13

subdivision V (Land Surveying). The last category, number 6, is of individuals who have complied with section 11(b) of the Act, in terms of having undertaken courses of study in land surveying and mathematics, and have practical experience in land surveying. It is not clear to me how Category 6 differs from category 3. 50. Section 12(2) states that those who fall under categories 4 and 5, by holding foreign licences and being Fellows, would not be exempted unless they satisfy the respondent that they have field experience in land surveying, are subjected to a trial survey by the respondent, and satisfy the respondent that they are capable of conducting surveys, in accordance with the Survey Act and the regulations made under it. 51. The rejection of the application by the ex parte applicant, as communicated in the letter of 10th November 2025, was on account of not meeting the requirements of section 11 of the Survey Act, specifically that mandating the respondent to consider such courses of study in land surveying and mathematics, as may be approved for purposes of examination and licencing. That would mean that the application was considered in the context of section 11(b) of the Act, which focuses on the relevant courses of study, being land surveying and mathematics. 52. The question then would be, had the ex parte applicant applied under section 11(a) or section 11(b) of the Survey Act? Or, put differently, going by the language of section 11 itself, whether the ex parte applicant was seeking entitlement to examination based on section 11(a) or section 11(b)? For if he was to be considered under section 11(a), the focus would not be on his academic qualifications, but practical experience. It means that, under section 11(a), one may not even have a paper qualification on land surveying, so long as there is accumulated competence, through practical experience of many years. Section 11(a) largely covers historical cases, and its application is limited, to them. 53. Consideration, under section 11(b), would appear to be principally limited to academics, with some experience. It does not look to the past, like section 11(a), but the present, where the principal qualification is an appropriate degree, covering specific areas of study. 54. The ex parte applicant protests that his case should not have been considered under section 11(b), but section 11(a), as read with section 12(1)(c). Was that the case? The ex parte applicant has not attached, to his application herein, the application that he had made to the respondent. I cannot, therefore, tell what was before the respondent, and I cannot gauge why the respondent considered the application under section 11(b) rather than section 11(a), and whether there would be merit in the ex parte applicant asserting that his case ought to have been considered under section 11(a) and section 11(b). 55. The ex parte applicant challenges a decision that was made based on an application to the respondent. To effectively evaluate whether the respondent made the decision properly, there would be need to have, before the court, the documents that the ex parte applicant had placed before the respondent for consideration, and which, in fact, the respondent considered in making the impugned decision. The impugned decision was based on something that the ex parte applicant had placed before the respondent, that material should also have been placed before the court. I cannot make proper judgement on the decision of the respondent, by merely looking at that decision, without having access to the material that had been placed before the respondent. 56. The only document, that I see on the record, which is of relevance, is the degree certificate of the ex parte applicant. It shows that he graduated in 2016. It would mean that between then and 2025, he might had accumulated some 9 years practical experience in land surveying. If his application was downplaying his academic qualification in land surveying and mathematics, and emphasising on accumulated practical experience in land surveying, then he could fall under section 11(a), so long as he provides proof of that practical experience, accumulated either from the Surveys of Kenya or under a licenced surveyor in https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5456/eng@2026-04-29 10

page 10 of 13

Kenya. Unfortunately, the ex parte applicant, in his papers, has not exhibited the statutory declaration envisaged under section 11(a), from the Director of Surveys, or from a licenced surveyor that he served under, or any other evidence that he had accumulated such exposure to land surveying, to the extent that he should be considered for a licence to practice the trade or profession. I cannot, therefore, without that material, effectively assess whether the respondent handled his application properly or not. 57. The ex parte applicant would like to pair section 11(a) and section 12(1)(c) of the Act, as what should have been applied to him. I do not think that would be the proper approach to the matter. Section 11(a) does not emphasize academic qualifications, but practical experience, and that those who would be considered, under that provision, need not even have those academic papers. It is section 11(b) which talks about academic qualifications, in the fields of land survey and mathematics. section 12(1) (c) of the Act equally talks of academic qualifications, in terms of a degree in land surveying. I reiterate that section 11(a) has a history, it is meant to apply in certain historical contexts, to which the ex parte applicant would not fit. 58. The respondent disallowed the application by the ex parte applicant on the basis of lacking the requisite academic qualifications, specifically with respect to land surveying and mathematics. That brought the matter squarely within section 11(b) of the Act. The ex parte applicant would have been entitled to exemption under section 12(1)(c), if he had sought it, subject to being suitably qualified, and if he had studied land law, for he claims and had claimed to have had a degree in land surveying. 59. I am persuaded that the case for the ex parte was properly considered as falling under section 11(b). I can only consider his case under that provision too, for he has only exhibited a degree certificate, to show that he had the relevant academic credentials, but he had provided no evidence of practical experience. The letter, that his Advocates wrote to the respondent, dated 13th November 2025, made the pitch that the respondent had rejected the academic qualifications of the ex parte applicant, in land surveying, and the demand was for a reversal of the decision, that is the rejection of that degree qualification. The ex parte applicant built his case, even before he filed it, on section 11(b) of the Act, so he cannot claim that he had approached the respondent for consideration under section 11(a). 60. Did the ex parte applicant qualify under sections 11(b) and 12(1)(c) of the Act? Section 11(b) requires a qualification in courses of study in land surveying and mathematics. Section 12(1)(c) talks of a degree in land surveying. The academic credentials, exhibited in the application herein, by the ex parte applicant, is a degree certificate for Bachelor of Technology in Surveying Technology. On the face of it, it does not mention land surveying. There is no telling whether the surveying technology has anything to do with land surveying. It would have helped, if the ex parte applicant had also exhibited other documents, to expose what was covered in that study, such documents as course outlines and examination results transcripts. That would have provided evidence that the course of study, mentioned in section 11(b), in land surveying and mathematics, was in fact covered in the Bachelor of Technology in Surveying Technology, and that the ex parte applicant did in fact take those courses and passed in them. A copy of the degree certificate alone does not say much, in terms of the content and substance of what was studied and passed, for the award of that degree. 61. It could be that the ex parte applicant had placed that material before the respondent. However, he has not filed them in court. I am supposed to evaluate the decision of the respondent, and, therefore, all the material that was before it must also be placed before me, for it is from that material that I should assess whether the impugned decision was made upon due process. Without that material, I would have no basis of evaluating the propriety of the decision made. Judicial Review works very much like appeal or ordinary review. It is about decisions; everything that was before the court, tribunal or administrative https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5456/eng@2026-04-29 11

page 11 of 13

entity, whose decision is under review, must be availed, for Judicial Review is about review of all that material, and not just the decision itself. 62. It was suggested that the degree awarded to the ex parte applicant was equivalent, on matters of land survey, to the others that are usually considered for licensing purposes. Whether one degree programme is similar or equivalent to another is a matter of content and substance, in terms of what ought to be taught and is actually taught in those programmes. The ex parte applicant alleges similarity, to frame the argument around discrimination, irrationality and unreasonableness. However, he has not provided any material on the substance and content of the degree programme that he went through, and material from the other programmes, where land surveying is taught, to provide a basis for comparison, to evaluate whether the decision by the respondent was driven by bias or was improper or irrational. 63. The third interested party, like the ex parte applicant, is a graduate of the first interested party. He was brought into the cause to demonstrate inconsistency, impropriety and irrationality on the part of the respondent, in the manner it has handled equivalent qualifications from the same university. It is argued that the third interested party graduated from the same university, that is the first interested party, and was awarded the same degree, a Bachelor of Technology in Land Surveying, and was allowed to sit the land law examination by the respondent, which he passed, setting him in the path to being licensed to practice surveying. 64. I am not persuaded that the third interested party and the ex parte applicant are in the same league. The third interested party graduated from the first interested party, in 2015, with a Bachelor of Technology in Land Surveying. The year of graduation may be neither here nor there, but the ex parte applicant graduated in 2016, from the same institution, the first interested party, meaning that he and the third interested party were in fact contemporaries. However, the ex parte applicant did not graduate with a Bachelor of Technology in Land Surveying, like the third interested party, but, according to his own annexture, FGJ-5, a Bachelor of Technology in Surveying Technology. Those are not the same degrees or qualifications, and the input, brought by the third interested party, is of little help. I find it surprising that the ex parte applicant anchors his application on a Bachelor of Technology in Land Surveying, yet he has not availed evidence that he holds one, for the degree certificate that he exhibits is for a Bachelor of Technology in Surveying Technology. 65. The third interested party and the ex parte applicant could not be treated the same way, for they held, on the face of their degree certificates, different academic qualifications. The third interested party held a degree in land surveying, which brought him within the realm of section 12(1)(c). It also brought him squarely within the purview of section 11(b), with respect to land surveying. The ex parte applicant holds a degree in surveying technology, not land surveying, and he has not sought to demonstrate that the curriculum for surveying technology, covered the courses of study mentioned in sections 11(b) and 12(1)(c), that is to say land surveying and mathematics. He has, therefore, not demonstrated that he qualified for consideration under any of the categories in section 11 of the Survey Act and section 12(1) (c) thereof. 66. There were arguments about the respondent usurping the mandate of the Commission for University Education, with respect to accreditation of degrees, for licensing purposes. I am not persuaded that that was the case. The provisions of the Survey Act permit licencing of individuals who hold a degree in land surveying. The mandate of the respondent, under the Act, is about licencing surveyors, and its limited role, with respect to degrees, is in evaluating whether a degree qualification placed before it fell within the requirements stated in the Act, of a qualification in land surveying. I have not seen the sense in which the respondent can be said to have had purported to have power to accredit courses offered in universities, for the purposes of those courses being offered at the universities. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5456/eng@2026-04-29 12

page 12 of 13

67. I am not persuaded, therefore, that the application, for the Judicial Review orders of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition, is substantiated or established, and I find that it lacks merit. It is hereby dismissed. The Motion herein, dated 9th December 2025, is disposed of in those terms. There shall be no order on costs. Orders accordingly. DELIVERED, VIA EMAIL, DATED AND SIGNED IN CHAMBERS, AT MILIMANI, NAIROBI, ON THIS 29TH DAY OF APRIL 2026. W MUSYOKA JUDGE Mr. Abdirahman, Court Assistant. Advocates Mr. Muthumba, instructed by Mike Muthumba & Company, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. Sausi, instructed by Ochoki & Ochoki, Advocates for the respondent. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5456/eng@2026-04-29 13

page 13 of 13