https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5084

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT HOMA BAY** **ELCLJR NO. E002 OF 2026** REPUBLIC.....................................................................................APPLICANT **VERSUS** THE SUB COUNTY LAND REGISTRAR AT KOSELE......................................................................1ST RESPONDENT THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL...........................2ND RESPONDENT **JUDGMENT** **INTRODUCTION** 1. Before this Court is the Ex Parte Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 6th March 2026 seeking an order of Judicial Review in the nature of **Mandamus** compelling the Sub-County Land Registrar, Rachuonyo Sub-County, to investigate the manner in which land parcel No. **Kabondo/Kowidi/380** was subdivided into parcels Nos. **Kabondo/Kowidi/1199, 1200, 1201 and 1202**, and to determine how title deed for parcel No. **Kabondo/Kowidi/1200** was issued to the Applicant despite the alleged absence of the parcel on the ground. The Applicant also seeks costs of the application. **THE APPLICANT'S CASE** 1. The application is supported by the statutory statement, verifying affidavit and annexures sworn by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant states that on 3rd January 2005 he purchased one hectare out of land parcel No. Kabondo/Kowidi/380 from the late Martin Sikuku Odongo. Before the transfer could be affected, the vendor died on 13th August 2005. 3. He depones that succession proceedings were subsequently undertaken in Succession Cause No. 148 of 2009, following which the administrator subdivided the original parcel into four portions namely parcels Nos. Kabondo/Kowidi/1199, 1200, 1201 and 1202. 4. The Applicant states that although he was issued with a title deed for parcel No. Kabondo/Kowidi/1200 measuring 0.40 hectares on 6th November 2015, it later emerged that no such parcel existed on the ground. 5. Following his complaint, the Land Registrar and Surveyor allegedly conducted investigations and by a letter dated 7th June 2016 addressed to Caleb Oloo Okech acknowledged that an error had occurred during plotting of the mutation. The Land Registrar advised Caleb Oloo Okech to obtain consent of the Land Control Board so that the affected portions could be subdivided and transferred to reflect the actual occupation on the ground. A reminder letter was subsequently issued. 6. The Applicant further avers that the Land Registrar later requested him to pay Kshs.25,000/= to facilitate a site visit, which amount he duly paid. Although notices for site visits were issued, the visits were never undertaken. 7. It is the Applicant's case that the Respondent has failed to discharge the statutory obligations imposed under the Land Registration Act and Article 47 of the Constitution. **PREVIOUS LITIGATION** 1. The Applicant also disclosed that he previously instituted **Oyugis SPMCC No. 74 of 2018** against Caleb Oloo Okech, the Land Registrar and the Land Surveyor seeking orders compelling rectification of the mutation forms and the creation of fresh boundaries to reflect what he considered to be the true position on the ground. 2. The Applicant contends that the suit was dismissed on a technicality and that such dismissal cannot relieve the Land Registrar of the obligation to rectify an apparent registration error. 3. This Court has carefully examined the judgment annexed as DM-9. 4. The record reveals that the suit proceeded to full hearing with oral evidence from all parties. 5. Significantly, the vendor, Martin Sikuku Odongo, testified that he personally showed both purchasers the respective portions they bought and that each purchaser occupied the portion allocated to him before titles were processed through the succession proceedings. 6. Upon evaluating the evidence, the trial court held that the Land Registrar could not alter what the parties themselves had agreed upon during the sale transactions and observed that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for the grant of the orders sought. The suit was consequently dismissed with costs. 7. Contrary to the Applicant's assertion, this Court finds that the suit was **not dismissed on a technicality** but was determined on its merits after a full hearing. **ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION** 1. The issue for determination is whether the Applicant has established the legal threshold for the grant of an order of **Mandamus**. **Analysis and Determination** 1. The law governing the remedy of mandamus is now well settled. 2. In **Kenya National Examinations Council v Republic ex parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 Others**, the Court of Appeal held that an order of mandamus issues to compel the performance of a public duty imposed by statute where the public officer has failed or refused to perform that duty. However, the Court emphasized that mandamus cannot direct **how** that duty is to be performed nor can it compel a public authority to exercise discretion in a particular manner. 3. The Court of Appeal in the case of **Suchan Investment Limited v Ministry of National Heritage & Culture & 3 others [2016] KLR** set out the traditional scope of judicial review as follows: “Traditionally, judicial review is not concerned with the merits of the case. However, Section 7 (2) (l) of the [*Fair Administrative Action Act*](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2015/4) provides proportionality as a ground for statutory judicial review….The test of proportionality leads to a “greater intensity of review” than the traditional grounds. What this means in practice is that consideration of the substantive merits of a decision play a much greater role. Proportionality invites the court to evaluate the merits of the decision.” reiterated that judicial review is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process and not with the merits of the impugned decision or the determination of private proprietary rights. 1. Likewise, the Court of Appeal in **Kenya Revenue Authority & 2 others v Darasa Investments Limited** also held that the scope of judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process rather than the merit consideration of the decision in issue. Additionally, judicial review does not avail to parties’ court room processes to thrash out disputed matters. 2. In the highly-cited Ugandan High Court case of **Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council & Others (2008) 2 EA 300,** the Court appropriately expounded on these parameters thus: **“In order to succeed in an application for Judicial Review, the applicant had to show that the decision or act complained of is tainted with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety: see Council of Civil Service Union v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) AC 2; and also Francis Bahikirwe Muntu and others Kyambogo University, High Court, Kampala, Miscellaneous Application Number 643 of 2005 (UR).** **Illegality is when the decision-making authority commits an error of law in the process of taking the decision 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: Re an Application by Bukoba Gymnkhana Club (1963) EA 478 at page 479 paragraph “E”.** **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 (Al-Mehdawi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1990] AC 876).”** 1. The above authorities clearly establishes that judicial review is about the decision-making process, not the decision itself. The role of the court in judicial review is supervisory. It is not an appeal and should not attempt to adopt the 'forbidden appellate approach.' Judicial review is the review by a judge of the High Court of a decision; proposed decision; or refusal to exercise a power of decision to determine whether that decision or action is unauthorized or invalid. It is referred to as supervisory jurisdiction reflecting the role of the courts to supervise the exercise of power by those who hold it to ensure that it has been lawfully exercised. 2. From the material before this Court, it is evident that the Applicant seeks to compel the Land Registrar to revisit the very issue that formed the subject of **Oyugis SPMCC No. 74 of 2018**. 3. In that suit, the Applicant specifically sought orders requiring the Land Registrar and the Surveyor to rectify the mutation forms, redraw the boundaries and recreate the parcels to correspond with what he believed to be the correct position on the ground. 4. Those issues were heard, evidence was taken from the parties, including the vendor, and the trial court reached a final determination declining to grant the relief sought. 5. The Applicant has neither demonstrated that the judgment was appealed against nor that it has been set aside. 6. It follows that the issues surrounding the alleged plotting error and the role of the Land Registrar were directly in issue before a court of competent jurisdiction. 7. Although the Applicant has framed the present proceedings as one for judicial review, the substance of the relief sought remains the same: to compel the Land Registrar to undertake investigations that would ultimately culminate in the rectification of the subdivision and titles previously litigated before the subordinate court. 8. The Applicant has relied heavily on the Land Registrar's letters of 7th June 2016 and the subsequent reminder. 9. **Section 14 of the Land Registration Act stipulates the general powers of Land Registrars as hereunder:** (1)The Chief Land Registrar, County Land Registrars or any other land registrars may, in addition to the powers conferred on the office of the Registrar by this Act—(a)require any person to produce any instrument, certificate or other document or plan relating to the land, lease or charge in question, and that person shall produce the same;(b)summon any person to appear and give any information or explanation in respect to land, a lease, charge, instrument, certificate, document or plan relating to the land, lease or charge in question, and that person shall appear and give the information or explanation;(c)refuse to proceed with any registration if any instrument, certificate or other document, plan, information or explanation required to be produced or given is withheld or any act required to be performed under this Act is not performed;(d)cause oaths to be administered or declarations taken and may require that any proceedings, information or explanation affecting registration shall be verified on oath or by statutory declaration; and(e)order that the costs, charges and expenses as prescribed under this Act, incurred by the office or by any person in connection with any investigation or hearing held by the Registrar for the purposes of this Act shall be borne and paid by such persons and in such proportions as the Registrar may think fit. (2)In addition to the powers conferred by section 14 (1) the Chief Land Registrar shall—(a)formulate practice instructions and guidelines for implementation of the land registration policies and strategies;(b)set standards for the registries;(c)supervise the registries;(d)prepare and submit an annual report on the state of land registration to the Commission and the Cabinet Secretary;(e)hear and determine appeals from the registries;(f)approve the format of any instrument which is not in accordance with the prescribed form; and(g)perform such other functions or duties as may be provided under any written law.(3)The Deputy Chief Land Registrar shall be the principal assistant of the Chief Land Registrar in the execution of the functions of the Chief Land Registrar.(4)The County Land Registrar shall be responsible for administering the registries within the respective county and in the implementation of policies, guidelines and strategies in accordance with this Act.(5)The Registrar shall not be held personally liable for lawful acts discharged by the Registrar under this Act in good faith. 1. Sections 18 and 19 of the [*Land Registration Act*](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2012/3) provide as follows: “ **Boundaries.** (1) **Except where, in accordance with section 20, it is noted in the register that the boundaries of a parcel have been fixed, the cadastral map and any filed plan shall be deemed to indicate the approximate boundaries and the approximate situation only of the parcel.** **(2) The court shall not entertain any action or other proceedings relating to a dispute as to the boundaries of registered land unless the boundaries have been determined in accordance with this section.** **(3) Except where, it is noted in the register that the boundaries of a parcel have been fixed, the Registrar may, in any proceedings concerning the parcel, receive such evidence as to its boundaries and situation as may be necessary:** **Provided that where all the boundaries are defined under section 19 (3), the determination of the position of any uncertain boundary shall be done as stipulated in the**[***Survey Act***](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5021)**(Cap. 299).** **19. In addition, Fixed boundaries(1)If the Registrar considers it desirable to indicate on a filed plan approved by the office or authority responsible for the survey of land, or otherwise to define in the register, the precise position of the boundaries of a parcel or any parts thereof, or if an interested person has made an application to the Registrar, the Registrar shall give notice to the owners and occupiers of the land adjoining the boundaries in question of the intention to ascertain and fix the boundaries.** **(2)The Registrar shall, after giving all persons appearing in the register an opportunity of being heard, cause to be defined by survey, the precise position of the boundaries in question, file a plan containing the necessary particulars and make a note in the register that the boundaries have been fixed, and the plan shall be deemed to accurately define the boundaries of the parcel.** **(3) Where the dimensions and boundaries of a parcel are defined by reference to a plan verified by the office or authority responsible for the survey of land, a note shall be made in the register, and the parcel shall be deemed to have had its boundaries fixed under this section.”** 1. The sections explicitly state that the Land Registrar initially addresses issues solely related to boundaries and has powers to carry out investigations. 2. This Court had the opportunity to clarify this position in [*Shari v Daniel & 4 Others*](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5021) [2025] KEELC 5021 (KLR): “**Based on the preceding discussion regarding the boundary fixing procedure, the process may be initiated either by the Land Registrar or by the individual seeking resolution of a boundary dispute through the Registrar. Failure to adhere to the procedures outlined for determining and establishing boundaries renders the court, pursuant to section 18(2) of the**[***Land Registration Act***](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2012/3)**, incapable of entertaining any actions or proceedings related to boundary disputes involving the specific parcels of land in question. Additionally, under Regulation 40(6) of the *Land Registration (General)Regulations,* 2017, the court's jurisdiction concerning boundary disputes is appellate. It is the court’s view that such jurisdiction cannot be invoked at the initial stage as contemplated by the plaintiff.”** 1. **In the same vein the land Registration (General) Regulation also accords powers to land Registrar as hereunder:** * 1. **Rule 40 Application for re-establishing a missing boundary or ascertainment of a boundary in dispute** 2. An interested person may apply to the Registrar for the ascertaining of a missing boundary or a boundary in dispute under section [18(3)](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2012/3/~part_II__sec_18__subsec_3) of the Act in Form LRA 23 set out in the Sixth Schedule. 3. The Registrar shall issue a notice in Form LRA 24 set out in the Sixth Schedule to all persons appearing in the register that may be affected or such other persons as the Registrar may deem necessary for resolution of the dispute if a person has complied with paragraph [(1)](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/ln/2017/278/eng%402024-04-25#part_V__sec_40__subsec_1). 4. The Registrar shall notify the office responsible for survey of land of the intended hearing of a boundary dispute and require their attendance if a person has complied with paragraph [(1)](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/ln/2017/278/eng%402024-04-25#part_V__sec_40__subsec_1). 5. In determining a boundary dispute lodged in accordance with paragraph [(1)](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/ln/2017/278/eng%402024-04-25#part_V__sec_40__subsec_1), the Registrar shall be guided by the recommendation of the office responsible for survey of land. 6. The Registrar shall, after giving all persons appearing for the hearing in accordance with the notifications sent under paragraphs [(1)](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/ln/2017/278/eng%402024-04-25#part_V__sec_40__subsec_1) and [(2)](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/ln/2017/278/eng%402024-04-25#part_V__sec_40__subsec_2) an opportunity to be heard, make a determination of the dispute and inform the parties accordingly. 7. Any party aggrieved by the decision of the Registrar made under paragraph [(5)](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/ln/2017/278/eng%402024-04-25#part_V__sec_40__subsec_5) may, within thirty days of the date of notification, appeal the decision to the Court. 8. Upon expiry of thirty days, the Registrar shall—(a)cause to be defined by survey the precise position of the boundaries in question;(b)file a plan approved by the authority responsible for survey of land containing the necessary particulars; and(c)make a note in the register that the boundaries have been fixed, and thereupon the plan shall be deemed to define accurately the boundaries of the parcel. 9. A dispute for determination of a boundary and or parcel shall, unless in the case of special circumstances, be completed within a period not exceeding six months from the date of filing the application. **B) Rule 41. Application for ascertaining and fixing boundaries** 1. An interested person may apply to the Registrar for the ascertaining and fixing of boundaries of land under section [19 (1)](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2012/3/~part_II__sec_19__subsec_1) of the Act, in Form LRA 23 set in the Sixth Schedule. 2. The notice issued by the Registrar under section [19(1)](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2012/3/~part_II__sec_19__subsec_1) of the Act shall be in Form LRA 24 set out in the Sixth Schedule. 3. When making a decision under section [19(1)](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2012/3/~part_II__sec_19__subsec_1) of the Act, the Registrar shall follow the procedure outlined in regulation [40](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/ln/2017/278/eng%402024-04-25#part_V__sec_40). 4. . In the case of J N N, (a Minor) M N M, suing as next friend v Naisula Holdings Limited t/a N School [2018] KEHC 8304 (KLR) the Court stated as follows: “**As I resolve this question, I must point out that administrative, statutory bodies, schools, or academic institutions are created for a variety of reasons to meet a variety of needs, and in some instances, some functions are a necessary element to fulfilling their mandate… Provided that the decision-maker is not acting outside its authority, such functions may stand court scrutiny”.** 1. One of the functions of the Respondent is to issue titles, hear any complaints and fix boundaries. 1. The record shows that the Exparte Applicant purchased land from one Martin Sikuku Odongo measuring 1.0 Hectare being a portion of his land No Kabondo/Kowidi /380 measuring 2.43 Hectares but unfortunately passed on before completing the process of transfer .The next of kin filed succession cause number 148 of 2029 at Oyugis and obtained a grant where the land was subdivided into four portions being Kabondo/Kowidi /1199,1200 and 1202 . 2. That the Applicant discovered one Richard Ayon Odongo, after being appointed Administrator, allocated to himself Plot number Kabondo/ Kowidi/1199 which he subdivided plot number 1199 into Land Parcel number Kabondo /Kowidi /1466 and 1476 which was sold to vitalis Abongó Ngore and Caleb Oloo Oketch 1. He further states that in order to cause confusion Caleb Oloo Okech merged Parcel number Kabondo/Kowidi /1467 with Kabondo /Kowidi /1202 and occupied the Area which ought to be for land parcel number Kabondo /kowidi /1200 1. That the Administrator sold the portion that the deceased had sold to the Ex-parte Applicant to one Caleb Oloo Okech which was registered as Parcel number Kabondo /Kowidi/1202 and transferred a title deed for the parcel number Kabondo/Kowidi /1200 to the Exparte Applicant but on the ground the Applicant found no space to accommodate the title 1. He made a complaint to the Land Registrar who wrote a letter to Caleb and later he was adviced to file a suit at Oyugis being SPM’S Case number 74 of 2018 against Caleb, the Surveyor and Land Registrar, and the case was decided on a technicality. 1. He explained his case to the Land Registrar and Surveyor who advised him to Kshs 25,000/-= for site visit and proper survey. 2. He seeks for Mandamus compelling the Land Registrar to carry out investigations in the manner in which Land Parcel No Kabondo /Kowidi /380 was subdivided to create land Parcel number 1199,1200 and 1202 and determine how a title deed was issued to David Mwanja. 1. I have gone through the documents annexed in support for leave and especially the letter dated 7/6/2016 where the Registrar has addressed the same to Caleb Oloo Oketch and indicated there was a mix up in issuing title. Similarly, I have looked at the receipt for payment of Kshs 25000/= dated 5/11/2024 and the letter dated 20th November ,2024 addressed all the title holders including the Exparte Applicants. 1. In the said letter the Registrar indicates he is to visit the land to confirm boundaries, and as it appears, payment received was for the said purpose. 1. From the above, it is clear that pursuant to Section 18 and 19 (1) as read together Rule 40 and 41 of The Land Registration (General) Regulations Legal Notice 278 of 2017 it is the responsibility of the Land Registrar to determine issues of boundaries between parties. 2. The Ex-Parte Applicant has provided evidence through his letter dated 26th May, 2022 and the receipt which shows that he wrote to the 1st Respondent requesting him to determine a boundary dispute between him and the Interested Parties, and no action has been done. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that the evidence of the Ex-Parte Applicant is credible. 3. The ex-parte applicant has confirmed that the Land Registrar asked him to pay for the boundary determination, and later a letter was written informing parties of the scheduled visit 4. The land Registrar has since failed to perform his duty and neither has he communicated 5. Despite receiving payment, he continues keeping the applicant in abeyance. The Respondent had a legal duty to ensure the Petitioner’s right to administrative action as set out in the law above would be respected. 6. It therefore follows that the Respondent’s failure to release the titles despite the Petitioner having complied with all the requirements violated his right to fair administrative action. **Whether The Respondent Violated the Petitioner’s Right to Access** **Justice** 1. Article 48 of [*the Constitution*](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2010/constitution) provides:The State shall ensure access to justice for all persons and, if any fee is required, it shall be reasonable and shall not impede access to justice. **Whether The Respondent Violted the National Values and Principles of Governance** 53. Article 10 of [*the Constitution*](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2010/constitution) provides: 1.The national values and principles of governance in this Article bind all State organs, State officers, public officers, and all persons whenever any of them— 1. applies or interprets this Constitution; enacts, applies or interprets any law; or c. makes or implements public policy decisions. 2. The national values and principles of governance include— a) patriotism, national unity, sharing and devolution of power, the rule of law, democracy, and participation of the people; 1. human dignity, equity, social justice, inclusiveness, equality, human rights, non-discrimination, and protection of the marginalized; 2. good governance, integrity, transparency, and accountability; and 3. sustainable development. 54. It therefore follows that the Respondent was obligated to adhere the national values espoused above. By failing to issue the title deeds despite the Petitioner having complied with the requisite conditions, the Respondent acted in a manner inconsistent with the national values and principles of governance set out in Article 10 of [*the Constitution*](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2010/constitution) 55. In the case of Kenya National Examination Council v Republic Ex Parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 others [1997] KECA 58 (KLR), the Court stated as follows concerning an order of mandamus: **The order of mandamus is of a most extensive remedial nature, and is, in form, a command issuing from the High Court of Justice, dire 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.** 56. The Ex-parte Applicant states that he made demands for land Registrar and the Survey Department to intervene into apparent discrepancy between the parcel in the register and the ground and having pursued administrative intervention the Respondent has failed to respond to. There is therefore an implied refusal by the Respondent to carry out investigations, which is not justified. Based on the foregoing, the only effective remedy available to the Petitioner is an order of mandamus. 57. On the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the learned counsel submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of “[*Communication Commission of Kenya & 5 others v Royal Media Services Ltd & 5 others*](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2014/53), (2014) eKLR” had this to say of the doctrine of legitimate expectation: - “In **proceedings for judicial review, legitimate expectation applies the principles of fairness and reasonableness, to the situation in which a person has an expectation, or interest in a public body retaining a long-standing practice, or keeping a promise. An instance of legitimate expectation would arise** **when a body, by representation or by past practice,** **has aroused an expectation that is within its power to fulfil. A party that seeks to rely on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, has to show that it has locus standi to make a claim on the basis of legitimate expectation.”** 1. The said court further laid down the principles that govern a successful invocation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation to be: - 2. **there must be an express, clear and unambiguous promise given by a public authority;** 3. **the expectation itself must be reasonable** 4. **the representation must be one which it was competent and lawful for the decision-maker to make; and** 5. **there cannot be a legitimate expectation against clear provisions of the law or the**[***Constitution***](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2010/constitution)**.”** 58. It would be the Ex-parte Applicant’s legitimate expectation that upon the Registrar being notified of the discrepancy in the land parcel in issue and subject to payment of fees, the Land Registrar would address the complaint Administratively. 59. The Applicant states he is not seeking for rectification of the register but for an order compelling the Registrar, as holder of statutory office charged with maintaining the integrity of Land records to investigate a complain touching on the integrity and propriety of entries in the Land register and to statutory mandate. * 1. Article 50 of the Constitution espouses the right to be heard which states that- “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.” 2. It is clear from the above provisions of the law that to the extent that the Ex-Parte Applicant requested to have a dispute determined by the 1st Respondent who has aroused an expectation that is within his power to fulfil but has failed to do so. 3. The application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation was explained in the case of Council of Civil Service Unions Vs Minister for the Civil Service [f984] 3 All ER 935 at 943-944 thus; "But even where a person claiming some benefit or privilege has no legal right to it, as a matter of private law, he may have a legitimate expectation of receiving the benefit or privilege and if so, the courts will protect his expectation by judicial review as a matter of public law. This subject has been fully explained by Lord Diplock in O'Relly Vs Mackman [1982] 3 AII ER 1124, (1983) 2 AC 237....legitimate, or reasonable expectation may arise either from an express promise given on behalf of a public authority or from the existence of a regular practice which the claimant can reasonably expect to continue." 4. The above decision was referred to in the Ugandan case of Kafu Sugar Ltd & Anor Vs The Attorney General & 5 Ors, C.S No.55 of 2Ol7 12O221UGHCCD 106 (17 June 2022) where the court stated that the total effect of the above authorities is that the principle of legitimate expectation is based on the proposition that where a public body states that it will do (or not do) something, a person who has reasonably relied on the statement should in the absence of good reasons be entitled to rely on the statement and enforce it through the courts of law. 5. Though I note that the Ex-parte Applicant had filed suit in Oyugis MC ELC NUMBER 74 OF 2018 the suit was through a plaint and the issue before the court was in regard to recalling the mutation and rectifying the same so as to issue fresh mutations. 6. The issue now before this court is Judicial review which was not sought for in the lower court on account of Jurisdiction. The two remedies are completely in contrast. 7. That notwithstanding the Ex-parte applicant has stated that it is the 1st Respondent who instigated him to file a suit on the legitimate expectation that the positive action towards correction of the error was to be done. 8. I have also seen a letter dated 16th Novembrer,2016 where the Land Registrar had issued a warning letter to one Caleb Oloo Oketch to act and in default the complainant was to move to court. 9. I find the Ex-parte applicant has the locus standi to hinge her case of the doctrine of legitimate expectation **DISPOSITION** * 1. The Court finds that the Notice of Motion dated 6th March 2026 is merited. 2. Consequently, this court issues an order of Judicial Review in the nature of **Mandamus** compelling the Sub-County Land Registrar,Rachuonyo Sub-County, to investigate the manner in which land parcel No. **Kabondo/Kowidi/380** was subdivided into parcels Nos. **Kabondo/Kowidi/1199, 1200, 1201 and 1202**, and to determine how title deed for parcel No. **Kabondo/Kowidi/1200** was issued to the Applicant despite the alleged absence of the parcel on the ground. 3. The Land Registrar is directed to investigate the discrepancy and take immediate action within 45 days from today 4. Each party to bear own costs **It is so ordered** **Judgement dated and delivered at Homa Bay at HomaBay ELC Court** **via teams’ platform this 31st day of July 2026.** **In the presence of;** * + 1. Oyala for the ex-parte for Applicant -Present. 2. Kajo (Attorney General) Absent. 3. Court Assistant- Ms. Bosibori. JUSTICE J.W WANYONYI – JUDGE