[2025] KEHC 1696 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 1696 (KLR)

The court found that no urgency was disclosed in the application, as the decisions being challenged were made several months prior. The court further observed that the substance of the application falls within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court, not the High Court. However, at the request of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 1696 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: District Land Registrar, Kwale; Respondent: Chief Registrar; Respondent: Attorney General; Applicant: Holiday Resports Development Company Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E033 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Urgency and Directions for Inter Partes Hearing
Outcome
Application for urgency declined; directions issued for inter partes hearing on jurisdiction.
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of High Court, Land Registration Disputes, Urgent Applications, Environment and Land Court Mandate
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of High Court Land Registration Disputes Urgent Applications Environment and Land Court Mandate

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

District Land Registrar, Kwale

Respondent

Chief Registrar

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Holiday Resports Development Company Limited

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Ruling on Urgency and Directions for Inter Partes Hearing

  1. 1 Whether the application discloses sufficient urgency to warrant certification as urgent.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application or if it falls within the mandate of the Environment and Land Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that no urgency was disclosed in the application, as the decisions being challenged were made several months prior. The court further observed that the substance of the application falls within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court, not the High Court. However, at the request of the exparte applicant's advocate, the court directed that the jurisdictional issue be canvassed inter partes, requiring service of the application on all affected parties and scheduling a hearing specifically on the question of jurisdiction before any further directions could be given.

Court Disposition

Application for urgency declined; directions issued for inter partes hearing on jurisdiction.

Orders

  • The application is not certified as urgent.
  • The exparte applicant is directed to serve the respondents and all affected parties within 21 days.