[2025] KEELC 3518 (KLR)
The court held that proceeding to determine the judicial review application in the absence of the owners of the parcels of land affected by the impugned decision would amount to a denial of their right to be heard and would replicate the procedural unfairness alleged by the Ex Parte Applicants. The court found that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELC 3518 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: District Land Registrar, Kajiado; Respondent: County Surveyor, Kajiado County; Applicant: Old Rhodian Holdings Limited; Applicant: Jonathan Kirisua Oimushu; Applicant: Soila Oimushu Partteru; Applicant: Yiamaita Oimushu; Applicant: Richard Meoli Oimushu; Applicant: David Kereto Oimushu
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Case Judicial Review Application E001 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Joinder and Directions Prior to Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment arrested; directions issued for joinder of interested parties.
- Judges
- MD Mwangi
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Fair Administrative Action, Boundary Disputes, Joinder of Parties
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Republic
Applicant
District Land Registrar, Kajiado
Respondent
County Surveyor, Kajiado County
Respondent
Old Rhodian Holdings Limited
Applicant
Jonathan Kirisua Oimushu
Applicant
Soila Oimushu Partteru
Applicant
Yiamaita Oimushu
Applicant
Richard Meoli Oimushu
Applicant
David Kereto Oimushu
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Joinder and Directions Prior to Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the decision of the respondents regarding the boundary dispute was unlawful for failure to involve all affected parties.
- 2 Whether the absence of the owners of the affected parcels of land in the proceedings renders the process procedurally unfair.
- 3 Whether the court can proceed to determine the application without joining all affected parties.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that proceeding to determine the judicial review application in the absence of the owners of the parcels of land affected by the impugned decision would amount to a denial of their right to be heard and would replicate the procedural unfairness alleged by the Ex Parte Applicants. The court found that the rules of natural justice and fair administrative action require that all persons who stand to be affected by a decision be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings. Accordingly, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to arrest the delivery of judgment and directed the Ex Parte Applicants to join the owners of the affected parcels as interested parties...
Court Disposition
Judgment arrested; directions issued for joinder of interested parties.
Orders
- The Ex Parte Applicants shall amend their Notice of Motion dated 11th February 2025 to join the owners of parcels Kajiado/Kaputiei-North/16456, 12775, 12776 and 12777 as interested parties.
- The Ex Parte Applicants shall serve the newly joined interested parties within 21 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
Republic v District Land Registrar, Kajiado & another; Old Rhodian Holdings Limited & 5 others (Exparte Applicants) (Environment and Land Case Judicial Review Application E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 3518 (KLR) (30 April 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 3518 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
Environment and Land Case Judicial Review Application E001 of 2025
MD Mwangi, J
April 30, 2025
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDERS OF CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION AND IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 10, 47 AND 232 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ACT, 2015 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LAND REGISTRATION ACT, 2012
Between
Republic
Applicant
and
The District Land Registrar, Kajiado
1st Respondent
The County Surveyor, Kajiado County
2nd Respondent
and
Old Rhodian Holdings Limited
Exparte Applicant
Jonathan Kirisua Oimushu
Exparte Applicant
Soila Oimushu Partteru
Exparte Applicant
Yiamaita Oimushu
Exparte Applicant
Richard Meoli Oimushu
Exparte Applicant
David Kereto Oimushu
Exparte Applicant
Ruling
1. The premises of this ruling is that the court in the course of writing the judgment in this matter has upon considering the facts as presented by the Ex Applicants found it necessary to issue certain directions to enable a final and conclusive determination of the issues at hand. This is in exercise of the court’s inherent jurisdiction to ensure the observance of the due process of the law.
2. Mativo J (as he then was) in the case of Rana Auto Selections Limited & 2 others –vs- Kenya Revenue Authority and another (2021) KEHC 323 KLR, quoted Jerold Taiz, in the book “The inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court”, where he describes the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court as follows;“…this latter jurisdiction should be seen as those (unwritten) powers, ancillary to its common law and statutory powers, without which the court would be unable to act with justice and good reason. The inherent powers of the court are quite separate and distinct from, its common law and its statutory powers e.g. in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, the court may regulate its own procedure independently of the rules of the court.”
3. The basis of the judicial review application by the Ex Parte Applicants herein as explained on the face of it and in the supporting affidavit thereof is that the Respondents conducted a site visit on 30th August 2024 purportedly to determine a boundary dispute between parcels of land Kajiado/Kaputiei-North/16456, 12775, 12776 and 12777. The site visit according to the Ex Parte Applicants was conducted in the presence of the owners of the said parcels of land and county officials. The Ex Parte Applicants however, who describe themselves as the registered proprietors and beneficial owners of parcels of land known as Kajiado/Kaputiei-North/25692 and 25693, and who were adversely affected by the decision of the Respondents, were neither involved in the exercise nor in the process leading to the determination of the alleged boundary disputes. They therefore term the said decision as unlawful, unconstitutional, unprocedural and contrary to the provisions of the Fair Administrative Action Act. They are before this court seeking to quash the said decision.
4. The owners of the parcels the subject matter of the boundary dispute leading to the impugned decision have not been joined into these judicial review proceedings whose determination will definitely affect them one way or the other.
5. This court would be committing a similar oversight as the one the Ex Parte Applicants seek to remedy through these proceedings if it proceeds with this matter in the absence of the owners affected parcels of land. Consequently, the court considers it prudent and in the interest of justice to pause the delivery of the judgment in this matter and direct that all the owners of the affected parcels of land be joined into these proceedings as interested parties to give them an opportunity to respond to the application herein before a decision is made.
6. The court therefore arrests its judgement and orders the Ex Parte Applicants to amend their Notice of Motion dated 11th February 2025 and join the owners of the parcels of land No. Kajiado/Kaputiei-North/16456, 12775, 12776 and 12777 as interested parties and serve them appropriately in the next 21 days. Directions as to the hearing of the Motion shall be given upon confirmation of compliance with the above orders of the court.It is so ordered.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KAJIADO VIRTUALLY THIS 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2025. M.D. MWANGIJUDGEIn the virtual presence of:Ms. Kiplai for the Ex Parte ApplicantsN/A by the RespondentCourt Assistant: Mpoye