https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4104

**** **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI** **ELCLJR CASE NO. E010 OF 2025** **IN THE MATTER OF: AN APPLICATION FOR ORDERS OF CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, AND MANDAMUS IN THE NATURE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF: THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF: THE LAND REGISTRATION ACT, CAP. 300 LAWS OF KENYA, FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ACT, CAP. 7L LAWS OF KENYA,** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF: LAND REFERENCE NO. 330/1251 (ORIGINAL NO. 330/341/2)** **BETWEEN** **REPUBLIC …………………………………………………………. APPLICANT** **AND** **THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEYS ………………………………1ST RESPONDENT** **THE CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR .……………………………2ND RESPONDENT** **THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL …………………………3RD RESPONDENT** **SEVENS POSITIONS MANAGEMENT** **COMPANY LIMITED …………………………………EX-PARTE APPLICANT** **JUDGEMENT** 1. By a Notice of Motion dated 16th July 2025, brought under Article 23(3)(f) of the Constitution of Kenya, Sections 1A, 1B, and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 79 of the Land Registration Act, Sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Ex-Parte Applicant seeks the following orders: 2. ***That this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue an order of Certiorari to remove into this Court and quash the decision of the 1st Respondent to alter the survey records with respect to the land reference details of property L.R. No. 330/1251 (Original No. 330/341/2) against the Ex parte Applicant's proprietary interest.*** 3. ***That this Honourable Court directs that an order of Prohibition be issued against the 2nd Respondent prohibiting him from in any way or manner whatsoever altering, amending, and/or rectifying the relevant Land Register with respect to property L.R. No. 330/1251 (Original No. 330/341/2) pursuant to the said alteration of the 1st Respondent against the interests of the Ex-parte Applicant without following due process of the law.*** 4. ***That this Honourable Court issues an order of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to correct the said alterations of the survey records, especially on the Registry Index Map, with respect to property L.R. No. 330/1251 (Original No. 330/341/2).*** 5. ***That the costs of this application be provided for.*** 6. The application is based on the grounds appearing on its face together with the statement of facts and the supporting affidavit of the Applicant’s Director, Michael Joshuah Njuguna, sworn on even date. **THE EX-PARTE APPLICANT’S CASE** 1. The deponent averred that the Applicant is the registered owner of property L.R. No. 330/1251 (Original No. 330/341/2) located along Ngong Road, Nairobi, having acquired a reversionary interest therein from Miproma Services Limited through an Indenture of Conveyance dated 19th November 1984 and a Transfer of Reversionary Interest dated 19th June 2012. 2. He averred that for about three years, the Applicant had been waiting for the gazettement of the suit property in accordance with the Land Registration (Registration Units) Order 2017. He explained that although neighbouring properties in the area had already been published, the suit property had not, which prevented the Applicant from applying for a replacement title from the closed register, rendering it impossible to transact on the property. 3. He further stated that in October 2024, while following up with the Survey Department regarding the delay in gazettement, the Applicant was advised to obtain a Registry Index Map for the suit property. Upon doing so, the Applicant discovered that the land reference details had been altered to read L.R. No. 330/1368 instead of L.R. No. 330/1251. When the Applicant's advocates inquired from the Survey Department about the reason for the alteration, they were verbally informed that L.R. No. 330/1251 had been allocated to another property that had been subdivided into various plots, with titles issued accordingly, resulting in L.R. No. 330/1251 no longer existing and therefore not eligible for listing for conversion in the Kenya Gazette. 4. The deponent stated that a subsequent official search conducted at the Land Registry on 15th October 2024 confirmed that the property's reference details according to the records of the 2nd Respondent, remained as L.R. No. 330/1251 (Original No. 330/341/2), and that no changes had been made. The Applicant subsequently wrote to the 1st Respondent on 31st October 2024, requesting the correction of the alterations on the Registry Index Map and the restoration of the property's reference number to L.R. No. 330/1251. The 1st Respondent neither responded to that letter nor reversed the challenged alteration. 5. He argued that the 1st Respondent's decision to alter the Registry Index Map and survey records was arbitrary, unfair, and lacked any legal basis. He maintained that the decision violated the Applicant's constitutional right to fair administrative action and breached the principles of natural justice, because the Applicant was not notified of the 1st Respondent's intention to make a decision affecting its legal and proprietary interests. 6. He argued that unless the 1st Respondent's decision is quashed, the 2nd Respondent might make consequential changes to the land register that would further prejudice the Applicant's proprietary interests and deprive it of the ability to obtain a replacement title, thereby violating its constitutional right to property. 7. In conclusion, the deponent urged the Court to allow the application in the interests of justice. 8. Although the Attorney General entered an appearance on behalf of the Respondents, no response or submissions were filed regarding this application. 9. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. **THE EX PARTE APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS** 1. The Ex-Parte Applicant filed its submissions dated 16th February 2026. 2. On behalf of the Applicant, Counsel outlined the following issues for the Court’s determination: *a*) *Whether the Applicant is entitled to the orders sought; and* *b) Who is liable to meet the costs of the application?* 1. Counsel submitted that the circumstances under which the 1st Respondent may lawfully alter the details on a cadastral or Registry Index Map are limited by law. 2. Counsel submitted that under Section 79(2) of the Land Registration Act, no change affecting the title of a landowner may be made without the owner’s consent, except in specified circumstances, and a written notice of ninety days must be provided to the owner before any such change is implemented. 3. Counsel further submitted that under Section 16 of the Land Registration Act, the office or authority responsible for land survey may only rectify the boundary line or position shown on the cadastral map when there is an approved subdivision plan, approved combination plan, or other approved plan requiring the boundary to be rectified. Counsel further submitted that such rectification must be notified to the Registrar by submitting the rectified cadastral map along with all approvals justifying the changes. Additionally, Counsel submitted that there was no evidence of an application for subdivision or combination of the suit property that would have necessitated altering the reference details on the cadastral map. The alteration was irregular since the official search dated 15th October 2024 confirmed that the 2nd Respondent's records still listed the property reference as L.R. No. 330/1251 (Original No. 330/341/2), with no changes having been recorded. 4. Counsel submitted that the 1st Respondent acted ultra vires and without jurisdiction by altering the reference details of the suit property on the cadastral map without the necessary approval, rendering the decision void ab initio. To support this point, reliance was placed on **Beatrice Wairimu Kiiru v Director of Surveys, Commissioner for Lands & District Lands Registrar, Naivasha [2011] KEHC 2904 (KLR),** where the Court held that an order of Certiorari can be issued when the impugned decision is found to have been made without or in excess of jurisdiction or when the rules of natural justice have not been complied with. 5. Counsel submitted that the 1st Respondent made the impugned decision without prior notice to the Applicant and without granting it an opportunity to be heard or to make representations. Counsel submitted that this constitutes a breach of the Applicant's right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution and Sections 4 and 6 of the Fair Administrative Action Act. 6. To support this point, Counsel relied on **Commissioner of Lands v Kunste Hotel Limited [1997] KECA 335 (KLR),** where the Court of Appeal held that when a party's interest in a subject property is clearly evident, the decision-maker is obliged to consult or hear it prior to making a decision adverse to that interest. Further reliance was placed on **Suchan Investment Limited & Another v Ministry of National Heritage & Culture & 5 Others [2016] KECA 729 (KLR),** where the Court of Appeal held that failure to disclose evidence in support of the exercise of statutory power vitiates the decision and constitutes an unreasonable exercise of discretion and abuse of power. 7. Counsel further submitted that the 1st Respondent's decision violated the Applicant's right to property under Article 40 of the Constitution. Counsel argued that there was a real risk that the 2nd Respondent might act on the 1st Respondent's decision to alter the land register, which could nullify the Applicant's title without any legal basis. Counsel urged the Court to prohibit the 2nd Respondent from implementing the 1st Respondent's decision. To support this argument, reliance was placed on **Beatrice Wairimu Kiiru v Director of Surveys supra,** where the Court, having found that the Director of Surveys had exceeded his jurisdiction and quashed the impugned decision and prohibited the other respondents from implementing it. 8. In conclusion, Counsel urged the Court to allow the application with costs. **ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION** 1. Having considered the application and the Ex-Parte Applicant’s submissions, the following issues arise for determination: *a) Whether the 1st Respondent's decision to alter the land reference details on the Registry Index Map was made ultra vires;* *b) Whether the 1st Respondent’s decision violated the Ex-Parte Applicant's right to fair administrative action; and* *c) Whether the Applicant is entitled to the* orders sought. 1. The parameters of Judicial Review were reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in **Municipal Council of Mombasa vs Republic & Umoja Consultants Ltd C. A Civil Appeal No. 185 of 2001**, where it was held that: ***“Judicial Review is concerned with the decision-making process, not with the merits of the decision itself; the Court would concern itself with such issues as to whether the decision maker had the jurisdiction, whether the persons affected by the decision were heard before it was made and whether in making the decision, the decision maker took into account relevant matters or did take into account irrelevant matters. The Court should not act as a Court of Appeal over the decider, which would involve going into the merits of the decision itself – such as whether there was or there was not sufficient evidence to support the decision.*** 1. The circumstances under which judicial review remedies may be issued were outlined in **Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council and Others (2008) 2 E. A 300,** where the Court held that: ***“In order to succeed in an application for Judicial Review, the applicant has to show that the decision or act complained of is tainted with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety ….. Illegality is when the decision-making authority commits an error of law in the process of taking or making the act, the subject of the complaint. Acting without jurisdiction or ultra vires or contrary to the provisions of a law or its principles are instances of illegality …. Irrationality is when there is such gross unreasonableness in the decision taken or act done, that no reasonable authority, addressing itself to the facts and the law before it, would have made such a decision. Such a decision is usually in defiance of logic and acceptable moral standards ….. Procedural impropriety is when there is a failure to act fairly on the part of the decision-making authority in the process of taking a decision. The unfairness may be in non-observance of the Rules of Natural Justice or to act with procedural fairness towards one to be affected by the decision. It may also involve failure to adhere and observe procedural rules expressly laid down in a statute or legislative instrument by which such authority exercises jurisdiction to make a decision.’*** 1. “The Supreme Court in **John Florence Maritime Services Limited & another v Cabinet Secretary Transport & Infrastructure & 3 others [2021] KESC 39 (KLR)** held that: “***Judicial review is a constitutional supervision of public authorities involving a challenge to the legal and procedural validity of the decision. It does not allow the court of review to examine the evidence with a view of forming its own view about the substantial merits of the case. It may be that the tribunal whose decision is being challenged has done something which it had no lawful authority to do. It may have abused or misused the authority which it had. It may have departed from procedures which either by statute or at common law as a matter of fairness it ought to have observed. As regards the decision itself it may be found to be perverse, or irrational, or grossly disproportionate to what was required. Or the decision may be found to be erroneous in respect of a legal deficiency, as for example, through the absence of evidence, or through a failure for any reason to take into account a relevant matter, or through taking into account an irrelevant matter, or through some misconstruction of the terms of the statutory provision which the decision maker is required to apply. While the evidence may have to be explored in order to see if the decision is vitiated by such legal deficiencies, it is perfectly clear that in a case of review, as distinct from an ordinary appeal, the court may not set about forming its own preferred view of the evidence. See Reid v Secretary of State for Scotland [1999] 2 AC 512.”*** **WHETHER THE 1ST RESPONDENT'S DECISION TO ALTER THE LAND REFERENCE DETAILS ON THE REGISTRY INDEX MAP WAS MADE ULTRA VIRES** 1. The Applicant contends that the 1st Respondent's decision to alter the reference details of the suit property in the Registry Index Map was ultra vires. The 1st Respondent is established under Section 3 as read together with Section 9 of the Survey Act, as the chair of the Land Surveyors Board. Its functions include advising the Director on all matters related to cadastral surveys in connection with the registration of land or of title to land under any written law for the time being in force relating to the registration of land or of title to land. 2. The powers of the 1st Respondent to manage the cadastral map are outlined in Section 15(1) of the Land Registration Act, which requires the office responsible for land surveys to maintain a cadastral map for each registration unit. 3. The 1st Respondent’s powers to alter the cadastral map are prescribed under Section 16(1) of the same Act, which provides that: ***(1) The office or authority responsible for the survey of land may rectify the line or position of any boundary shown on the cadastral map based on an approved subdivision plan, approved combination plan or any other approved plan necessitating the alteration of the boundary, in the prescribed form, and in accordance with any law relating to subdivision of land that is for the time being in force.*** ***(2) Whenever the boundary of a parcel is altered on the cadastral map, the parcel number shall be cancelled, and the parcel shall be given a new number.*** ***(3) The office or authority responsible for the survey of land may prepare new editions of the cadastral map or any part thereof, and may omit from the new map any matter that it considers obsolete.*** ***(4) Any rectification to the cadastral map in accordance with this section shall be notified to the Registrar by the submission of the rectified cadastral map and all the approvals that necessitated the amendments.*** 1. In the matter at hand, the Applicant contends that the 1st Respondent unlawfully altered the land reference details of the suit property on the Registry Index Map, replacing the reference L.R. No. 330/1251 with L.R. No. 330/1368. 2. In this regard, the Applicant produced a conveyance of L.R. No. 330/341 from Alfred Vincent Otieno to Miproma Services Limited dated 19th November 1984, a transfer of the reversionary interest in a subdivided portion of L.R. No. 330/1251 from Miproma Services Limited to Sevens Positions Management Company Limited dated 19th June 2012; and a copy of the Registry Index Map showing an alteration was made to refer to L.R. No. 330/1368 instead of L.R. No. 330/1251. 3. The Applicant also produced an official search indicating that L.R. No. 330/1251 is the current reference for L.R. No. 330/341/2. The Applicant contends that the alteration recorded on the Registry Index Map is inconsistent with the official search result and the chain of title, and that it was effected without lawful authority. 4. The 1st Respondent neither filed any response nor presented any evidence of an approved subdivision plan, combination plan, or any other approved plan that could have authorised or required that alteration. There is also no evidence that the necessary instructions from the Registrar were obtained or that the rectified map was submitted to the Registrar along with the relevant approvals. 5. Conversely, the official search conducted on 15th October 2024 confirmed that the 2nd Respondent's records still show the property reference as L.R. No. 330/1251 (Original No. 330/341/2), with no corresponding change made in the land register. 6. This Court finds that the 1st Respondent, in altering the land reference details of L.R. No. 330/1251 on the Registry Index Map without an approved plan, written, and without submitting the rectified cadastral map along with the necessary approvals as required by Sections 16(1) and 16(4) of the Land Registration Act, acted without jurisdiction and in excess of the statutory power conferred upon him. The decision was accordingly made ultra vires and is a nullity. **WHETHER THE 1ST RESPONDENT’S DECISION VIOLATED THE APPLICANT’S RIGHT TO FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION** 1. Article 47(1) and (2) of the Constitution provide that: ***1. Every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair.*** ***2. If a right or fundamental freedom of a person has been or is likely to be adversely affected by administrative action, the person has the right to be given written reasons for the action*** 1. Article 50(1) of the Constitution provides for fair trial as follows: ***“Every person has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair and public hearing before a court or, if appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or body.”*** 1. Section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015 imports the principles of natural justice and provides as follows: ***3) Where an administrative action is likely to adversely affect the rights or fundamental freedoms of any person, the administrator shall give the affected person the decision-*** ***a. prior and adequate notice of the nature and reasons for the proposed administrative action.*** ***b. an opportunity to be heard and to make representations in that regard.*** ***c. notice of a right to review or internal appeal against an administrative decision where applicable.*** ***d. a statement of reasons pursuant to section 6.*** ***e. notice of the right to legal representation where applicable*** ***f. Notice of the right to cross-examine.*** ***g. information, materials and evidence to be relied upon in making the decision or taking the administrative action.*** 1. It is clear from the above provisions that the tribunal or authority entrusted with the mandate of making decisions must act in a fair manner. Procedural fairness is a Constitutional requirement in administrative actions. 2. Section 6 of the same Act imposes an additional duty on the administrator to provide information, including written reasons for any administrative action, upon request by any affected person. 3. The purpose of the right to fair administrative action was elucidated by the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the case of **President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Rugby Football Union and Others (CCT16/98) 2000 (1) SA 1**: “***Although the right to just administrative action was entrenched in our Constitution in recognition of the importance of the common law governing administrative review, it is not correct to see section 33 as a mere codification of common law principles. The right to just administrative action is now entrenched as a constitutional control over the exercise of power. Principles previously established by the common law will be important though not necessarily decisive, in determining not only the scope of section 33, but also its content. The principal function of section 33 is to regulate conduct of the public administration, and, in particular, to ensure that where action taken by the administration affects or threatens individuals, the procedures followed comply with the constitutional standards of administrative justice. These standards will, of course, be informed by the common law principles developed over decades…”*** 1. In the matter at hand, it is not in dispute that the 1st Respondent made the decision to alter the land reference details on the Registry Index Map without giving the Applicant any prior notice of the intended action, without affording the Applicant an opportunity to be heard or to make representations, and without furnishing any written reasons for the decision. The Applicant only became aware of the alteration in October 2024 through its own inquiry at the Survey Department and, only then, ascertained the alteration from a Registry Index Map obtained on its own initiative. Subsequently, the Applicant wrote to the 1st Respondent on 31st October 2024, requesting both the correction of the alteration and the written reasons therefor. The 1st Respondent responded to neither. 2. In **Commissioner of Lands v Kunste Hotel Limited [1997] KECA 335 (KLR),** the Court of Appeal held that when a party's interest in a subject property is clearly evident, the decision-maker is obliged to consult or hear that party before making a decision adverse to that interest. 3. This Court is satisfied that the Applicant is the registered proprietor of the suit property. Its rights would be adversely affected by any alteration of the parcel's reference details on the Registry Index Map. The 1st Respondent was obliged, under both the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, to notify the Applicant before making the impugned decision and to give it an opportunity to be heard. 4. In **Suchan Investment Limited & Another v Ministry of National Heritage & Culture & 5 Others [2016] KECA 729 (KLR**), the Court of Appeal held that failure to disclose evidence in support of the exercise of statutory power vitiates the decision and constitutes an unreasonable exercise of discretion and abuse of power. 5. This Court finds that the 1st Respondent's failure to give the Applicant prior notice, an opportunity to be heard, and written reasons for the impugned decision constitutes a clear and fundamental breach of the Applicant's right to fair administrative action as outlined under Article 47 of the Constitution and Sections 4(3) and 6 of the Fair Administrative Action Act. The breach is further aggravated by the 1st Respondent's silence in response to the Applicant's written request for reasons dated 31st October 2024. **WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO THE ORDERS SOUGHT** 1. The Applicant seeks an order of Certiorari to quash the 1st Respondent’s decision which altered the survey records in respect of the suit property. An order of Certiorari issues to quash a decision of a public body, tribunal or authority where the decision was made without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, in breach of the principles of natural justice or was otherwise affected by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. 2. It is trite law that a public official must act within the statutory authority conferred upon him, and any actions taken beyond those limits are void for lack of jurisdiction. In **Republic v National Land Commission & 3 others Ex parte Ashok Labhshanker Doshi & another [2019] KEELC 2195 (KLR),** it was held that an order of certiorari is used to bring the decision of an inferior tribunal or authority to the High Court for quashing when that decision is made ultra vires. Similarly, in **Beatrice Wairimu Kiiru v Director of Surveys & 2 Others [2011] KEHC 2904 (KLR),** it was held that an order of Certiorari will be issued if the impugned decision is deemed to have been made without or in excess of jurisdiction or where the rules of natural justice are not complied with. 3. In the matter at hand, the 1st Respondent did not present evidence of an approved subdivision plan, combination plan or other approved plan that could have necessitated the alteration. Similarly, there is no evidence that the necessary instructions were obtained from the Registrar in making the impugned decision. Consequently, the 1st Respondent the decision of the 1st Respondent is ultra vires and liable to be quashed. The 1st Respondent's decision was made without jurisdiction and should therefore be quashed. 4. The Ex parte Applicant sought an order of prohibition directed at the 2nd Respondent to prohibit it from altering, amending, or rectifying the relevant Land Register in respect of L.R. No. 330/1251 pursuant to the 1st Respondent's impugned decision. 5. An order of Prohibition is issued to restrain a public body from continuing or undertaking an unlawful act. In **Kenya National Examination Council vs Republic ex parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge and nine others (1997) eKLR,** the Court articulated the circumstances under which an order of prohibition may be issued as follows: *“Prohibition is an order from the High Court directed to an inferior tribunal or body which forbids that tribunal or body to continue proceedings therein in excess of its jurisdiction or in contravention of the laws of the land…It does not, however, lie to correct the course, practice, or procedure of an inferior tribunal or a wrong decision on the merits of the proceedings.* And *further,* *“Prohibition cannot quash a decision which has already been made; it can only prevent the making of a contemplated decision”.* 1. Having found that the Respondent acted without authority, It follows that any consequential steps intended to implement the impugned decision would equally be unlawful. The undisputed fact that the 2nd Respondent's records still show the property reference as L.R. No. 330/1251 creates a significant inconsistency between the Land Registry and the Registry Index Map. In the circumstances, I find that an order of Prohibition sill prevent the execution of the decision made without jurisdiction. 2. The Applicant seeks an order of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to correct the alterations on the survey records regarding the suit property. Mandamus is an equitable remedy that compels a public authority to perform its legal duty. 3. In **R vs Kenya National Examination Council ex parte Gathengi & 8 Others (1997) eKLR,** the Court of Appeal stated as follows: ***“The order of mandamus is of a most extensive remedial nature and is, in form, a command issuing from the High Court of justice directed to any person, corporation or inferior tribunal, requiring him or them to do some particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. Its purpose is to remedy the defects of justice and accordingly it will issue to the end that justice may be done in all cases where there is a specific legal right and no specific legal remedy for enforcing that right; and it may issue in cases where although there is an alternative legal remedy, yet that mode of redress is less convenient, beneficial and effectual”.*** 1. The test for granting *mandamus* was eloquently set out in ***Apotex Inc. vs. Canada* (*Attorney General*).** The position was reiterated **in *Dragan vs. Canada* (*Minister of Citizenship and Immigration*) (2003) FCA 139,** which stated that the following factors must be present for the writ to issue: *i.* ***There must be a public legal duty to act;*** ***ii. The duty must be owed to the Applicants;*** ***iii. There must be a clear right to the performance of that duty.*** ***iv. A prior demand for performance;*** ***v. reasonable time to comply with the demand, unless there was outright refusal; and*** ***vi. An express refusal, or an implied refusal through unreasonable delay;*** ***vii No other adequate remedy is available to the Applicants;*** 1. Section 16(1) of the Land Registration Act imposes on the 1st Respondent the duty to rectify cadastral maps only on the basis of approved plans and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Having acted outside that procedure, the 1st Respondent is under a correlative obligation to restore the cadastral map to its prior lawful state. This court finds that the circumstances of this case justify the issuance of an order of mandamus compelling the 1st Respondent to correct the impugned alterations on the Registry Index Map and to restore the suit property's reference details to L.R. No. 330/1251 (Original No. 330/341/2). 2. The upshot of the foregoing is that the application dated 16th July 2025 is merited and is hereby allowed as follows: 1. ***An order of Certiorari is hereby issued removing into this court and quashing the decision of the 1st Respondent to alter the survey records and land reference details of property L.R. No. 330/1251 (Original No. 330/341/2) on the Registry Index Map.*** 2. ***An order of Prohibition is hereby issued prohibiting the 2nd Respondent from altering, amending, or rectifying the relevant Land Register in respect of property L.R. No. 330/1251 (Original No. 330/341/2) pursuant to the 1st Respondent's impugned decision or otherwise.*** 3. ***An order of Mandamus is hereby issued directing the 1st Respondent to correct the alterations on the Registry Index Map in respect of property L.R. No. 330/1251 (Original No. 330/341/2) and to restore the suit property's reference details to L.R. No. 330/1251 (Original No. 330/341/2).*** 4. ***Costs of this application are awarded to the Ex-Parte Applicant.*** **RULING SIGNED, DATED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2026** **…………………………………….** **HON. T. MURIGI** **JUDGE** **IN THE PRESENCE OF**: Ms Mweru for the Applicant Ahmed – Court assistant