Republic v Director Criminal Investigations; Seroney (Ex parte) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3185 (KLR) (21 May 2026) (Judgment)

Republic v Director Criminal Investigations; Seroney (Ex parte) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3185 (KLR) (21 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3185 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E002 of 2025 GMA Ongondo, J May 21, 2026 Between Republic Applicant and The Director Criminal Investigations Respondent and Ziporah Jebichi Seroney Ex parte Judgment 1.The Ex parte Applicant, Ziporah Jebichi Seroney through Chege & Sang Company Advocates prayed for enlargement of time and leave, among other orders to institute these Judicial Review proceedings further to her chamber summons application dated 3rd October 2025. By the ruling delivered on 3rd November 2025, this Honourable Court granted the prayers accordingly. 2.In the result, the Ex-parte applicant generated an application by way of the Notice of Motion dated 17th November 2025 under, inter alia, Article 23 93) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 (The Constitution herein) and sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act Chapter 26 Laws of Kenya for the orders infra;a.That an order of Certiorari be issued to bring into this Honourable court for purposes of being quashed the entire decision of the Director of Criminal Investigations to place an indefinite restriction on the Applicant’s properties as contained in the letter dated 24th February 2025.b.That an order of Prohibition be issued prohibiting the Respondent withholding the original title deed for land parcel number Nandi/Chepkumia/502 (The land in dispute herein).c.That an order of Mandamus be issued directing the Respondent to conclude their investigations within 14 days failure to which there be a removal of the restriction place as per the letter dated 24th February 2025.d.Costs incidental to the Application be in the cause. 3.The foundational basis of the application include; the Ex parte Applicant’s verifying affidavit with the annexed documents including a copy of title to the land in dispute (ZS 1) and Respondent’s letter dated 24th February 2025 (ZS 3) accompanying the Chamber Summons Application and the statement of facts. Briefly, the Ex parte applicant laments that the Respondent unlawfully withheld the original of the land in dispute and caused a restriction to be registered over the title by a letter (ZS 3) without any reasons, notice or legal basis thus, provoking these proceedings. 4.The respondent was duly served with the matter as revealed in inter alia, the affidavits of service sworn on 5th November 2025 and 10th February 2026 but opted not to appear and respond thereto as noted in Festus Ogada vs Hans Mollin (2009) eKLR. 5.Mr. Sang learned counsel for the Ex Parte Applicant implored the court to allow the application as prayed since the respondent duly served with the application as stated in paragraph 4 hereinabove, failed to oppose the same. 6.In that regard, has the Ex parte applicant established her claim to the requisite standards for the grant of the orders sought in the application? 7.Notably, every person inclusive of the Ex parte applicant has the right to fair administrative action as enshrined in Article 47 of the Constitution which is given effect by the Fair Administrative Action Act No. 4 of 2015. So, both public and private bodies making administrative decisions must act expeditiously, efficiently. lawfully and in a procedurally fair manner. 8.Evidently, there is in existence an indefinite restriction on the land in dispute as contained in the Respondent’s letter dated 24th February 2025 ((ZS 3) and confirmed by the Ex parte applicant’s request letter (ZS 2) in this application. Clearly, the decision as per the letter is unlawful, unreasonable and procedurally unfair as there was no notice or reasons thereof. Thus, the Respondent’s administrative decision (ZS 3) attracts the orders sought in the application as the appropriate relief herein. 9.Article 23 (3) (f) (supra) empowers this Honourable court to grant, inter alia, judicial review relief in any proceedings originated under Article 22 of the Constitution as held by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kenya in the case of Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others vs Royal Madia Services & 5 others (2014) eKLR. 10.Moreover, the instant decision relating to the respondent’s decision is rendered in the spirit of Article 159 (2) (b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 that; Justice shall not be delayed. 11.In Kirugi & another vs Kabiya & 3 others (1987) KLR 347, the Court of Appeal held that;‘The burden was always on the plaintiff to prove his case on a balance of probabilities even if the case was heard as formal proof.’ 12.In the present matter, the Ex parte Applicant has established her claim contained in her averment in the verifying affidavit with the annexed documents including ‘ZS 1 to ZS 4’ and statement of facts for judicial review remedies against the Respondent on a balance of probabilities. 13.A fortiori, Judgment be and is hereby entered for the Ex parte Applicant against the Respondent for the following orders;a.That an order of Certiorari be issued to bring into this Honourable court for purposes of being quashed the entire decision of the Director of Criminal Investigations to place an indefinite restriction on the Applicant’s properties as contained in the letter dated 24th February 2025.b.That an order of Prohibition be issued prohibiting the Respondent withholding the original title deed for the suit land.c.That an order of Mandamus be issued directing the Respondent to conclude their investigations within 14 days failure to which there be a removal of the restriction place as per the letter dated 24th February 2025.d.Given the nature of this matter and by the proviso to Section 27 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act Chapter 21 Laws of Kenya and the Supreme Court of Kenya decision in the case of Jasbir Singh Rai & others vs Tarlochan Rai & others (2014) eKLR, costs be in the cause. 14.It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT KAPSABET THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY 2026.HON. G. M. A. ONG’ONDOJUDGEIn the presence of;1. Mr. Sang learned counsel for the appellant2. Mr. Walter Kipkorir, court assistant