https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3177

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MALINDI** **MISC APP NO. E028 OF 2024** **GEORGE KIRATU GITHINJI…………………………………..APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **THE DISTRICT LAND REGISTRAR KILIFI** **KADENGE KENGA KOI** **THE LAND ADJUDICATION OFFICER KILIFI** **THE ATTORNEY GENERAL………………..........................RESPONDENTS** **RULING** 1. The Chamber Summons application dated 18th day of June 2025 seeks leave to bring a substantive Judicial Review application. 2. This court has however noted that there is an element of confusion that arose as from 6/3/2025 when the 1st and 3rd respondents’ counsel appeared and indicated that those parties had filed submissions on the application dated 19/7/24 and the court ordered that the matter be set down for a ruling. 3. The court noted on that day that the submissions filed by the applicant were in respect of an application for leave to file Judicial Review proceedings yet there was no application for leave in the file. 4. In its directions that followed on 7/5/2025, the court noted that the respondents had not filed any submissions. It is clear while preparing submissions dated **17/2/2025** that the mind of the applicant’s counsel laboured under the mistake that the application dated **19/7/2024** was meant to be a leave application. That application however sought no leave at all and only alluded to leave at **prayer no 5.** 5. This court thus allowed the applicant’s counsel time to put his house in order and slated the matter for a mention on 17/6/2025. In the sitting of 17/6/25, counsel for the 2nd respondent, Mr. Ngowa was of the view that the motion dated 19/7/2024 needed to be amended to accommodate orders seeking leave, and the court allowed the applicant time to act on the application by way of amendment. That is how the chamber summons application dated 18th June 2025 seeking leave came about. Still, as at 17/2/2026 counsel for the 2nd respondent alerted the court that he had not yet been served with it. 6. Looking at the matter in retrospect, I find that while dealing with the matter at around that time when the court was in the process of preparing what was to be a judgment, the applicant’s submissions regarding leave, and the very structure of the Motion, misled it to believe that the same was intended to be a leave application, and it thus withheld its final decision. 7. This court has however, observed that in the ruling earlier delivered by court on 10/12/24 the nature of the application dated 19/7/2024 as one not needing leave had been dealt with and accepted as a substantive application. In circumstances, there was no need to revert back to the leave issue. The amended notice of motion/chamber summons is therefore superfluous and is struck out with no orders as to costs. The applicant shall instead file substantive submissions on the application dated 19/7/2026 within 10 days from today and the respondents shall respond within 10 days after service of the submissions on them and parties shall appear for issuance of a ruling date on 17/6/2026. The 2nd respondent who by now has not seen the submissions on the substantive application, shall be at liberty to file a fresh set of submissions once served by the applicant. **Dated, signed** and **delivered** at **Malindi via electronic mail** on this **20th** day of **May 2026.**  **MWANGI NJOROGE** **JUDGE, ELC, MALINDI.**