https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3421

Republic v Attorney General & 2 others; Kitangu & another (Ex parte) (Judicial Review E001 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 3421 (KLR) (21 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3421 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Kitui Judicial Review E001 of 2021 A Kaniaru, J May 21, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLES 35,47 AND 159 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA (2010) AND IN THE MATTER OF: THE LAW REFORM ACT, CAP 26 LAWS OF KENYA, SECTIONS 8 AND 9 AND IN THE MATTER OF: LAND ADJUDICATION ACT CAP 284 LAWS OF KENYA SECTIONS 12 AND 19 AND IN THE MATTER OF: ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT ACT, NO.19 OF 2011, SECTION 13 Between Republic Applicant and The Attorney General 1st Respondent The Deputy County Commissioner Mumoni Sub-County 2nd Respondent and Mwendwa Kimwele Interested Party and Dorothy Mawia Kitangu Ex parte Mulonzya Mathuku Ex parte Judgment 1.The focus of this judgement is an amended Notice of Motion dated 2/11/2021 and expressed to be brought under Sections 7, 9 and 10 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015, Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act, Cap 26, Laws of Kenya, Section 13 of the Environment & Land Court Act, 2011, Order 53 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and all other enabling provisions of the law. The motion was filed by the ex parte Applicants – Mulonzya Mathuku And Dorothy Mawia Kitangu – against the respondents – The Attorney General and The Deputy County Commissioner, Mumoni County – and also against the interested party – Mwendwa Kimwele. 2.The ex parte applicants would wish to get the following orders:1.An order of certiorari for purposes of quashing the proceedings and decision of the 2nd respondent in Katse Adjudication Section Appeal to the Minister No. 37 of 2020 between the Interested Party and the applicants over Katse Adjudication Section Parcel No’s 919, 918, 917, 916, 915, 914, 913, 912, 920, 921, 923, 924, 925, 926, 895, 896, 897, 898, 911, 899, 900, 901, 902 and 910.2.That costs be borne by the respondents. 3.The application is premised on the grounds, inter alia, that demarcation was done on 2/7/2014 and the disputed parcels of land were recorded in the names of their owners. The interested party did not lodge any claim of ownership at the time. He was said to have been well aware of what was going on but didn’t dispute anything. Instead, he only lodged a dispute in relation to a different parcel of land – parcel No. 634 – and the claim he lodged was later dismissed. 4.The interested party’s claim over the disputed parcels of land was said to have been raised at the objection stage. 5.Details of the recorded ownership of the disputed parcels of land before objection were given thus:Parcel No. Demarcated Owner (s)911 Dorothy Mawia Kitangu/Mulonzya Mathuku912 Mulonzya Mathuku913 Dorothy Mawia Kitangu914 Mulonzya Mathuku915 Dorothy Mawia Kitangu916 Marcy Vaati Mulonzya/ Mulonzya Mathuku917 Carol Mumbe Mulonzya/ Mulonzya Mathuku918 Carol Mumbe Mulonzya/ Mulonzya Mathuku919 Frida Ndanu Mulonzya/ Mulonzya Mathuku920 Grace Musengya Mulonzya/ Mulonzya Mathuku921 Samuel Mumo Mulonzya/ Mulonzya Mathuku922 Samuel Mumo Mulonzya/ Mulonzya Mathuku923 Mulonzya Mathuku/ Dorothy Mawia Kitangu924 Dorothy Mawia Kitangu/ Mulonzya Mathuku925 Mulonzya Mathuku/ Dorothy Mawia Kitangu926 Dorothy Mawia Kitangu/ Mulonzya Mathuku895 Mulonzya Mathuku/ Dorothy Mawia Kitangu910 Mulonzya Mathuku/ Dorothy Mawia Kitangu899 Mulonzya Mathuku/ Dorothy Mawia Kitangu896 Mulonzya Mathuku/ Dorothy Mawia Kitangu898 Mulonzya Mathuku/ Dorothy Mawia Kitangu902 Mulonzya Mathuku/ Dorothy Mawia Kitangu897 Mulonzya Mathuku/ Dorothy Mawia Kitangu900 Samuel Mumo Mulonzya/ Mulonzya Mathuku901 Samuel Mumo Mulonzya/ Mulonzya Mathuku 6.At the objection stage, the interested party is said to have lodged claims over disputed parcels of land as follows:Parcel No. Objection No.919 79/2017918 78/2017917 77/2017916 76/2017915 75/2017914 74/2017913 73/2017912 72/2017920 80/2017921 81/2017922 82/2017923 83/2017923 84/2017924 85/2017925 86/2017926 87/2017895 88/2017897 89/2017898 89/2017911 46/2017899 91/2017900 92/2017901 93/2017902 94/2017910 95/2017 7.At the objection stage, the interested party is said to have lodged his claims against seven (7) parcels. His claims were all heard and dismissed. The interested party then appealed and his appeal was registered as Katse Adjudication Section Appeal Case No. 37 of 2020. The appeal lodged was against one party only – Mulonzya Mathuku. The other six (6) people who were parties at the objections stage were left out. 8.The Exparte Applicants fault the manner in which the appeal was handled for reasons, inter alia, only one of them – the 1st Exparte Applicant – participated in the hearing; that the rest of them, six in number, were condemned unheard; that the 2nd Exparte Applicant in particular sought to participate but was denied a chance to give evidence; and that the hearing itself was conducted in a manner that exhibited bias. 9.Further, the decision made was said to be in excess of jurisdiction because it had the effect of overturning the decision of the court in Kitui SRMC Land Case No. 20 of 1989 dated 22/8/1990. The 2nd respondent was also blamed for deliberately failing to supply appeal proceedings to the Exparte Applicants even after repeated requests to do so. 10.Ultimately, the decision made was said to be tainted with breach of rules of natural justice, was allegedly biased, riddled with procedural impropriety, and also ultra-vires. 11.The interested party responded via a replying affidavit dated 28/5/2024. He stated, inter alia, that the appeal is frivolous as it seeks to challenge the decision made instead of the procedure followed in making the decision. According to him, the procedure or process used was fair and unbiased as each side was given an opportunity to be heard and also call witnesses. He pointed out also that the adjudication officer had directed in the lower-stage proceedings that the parcels of land be registered in the name of the 1st Exparte Applicant. The others who are recorded as owners were said to belong to the family of the Exparte Applicant. 12.Further, the Exparte Applicants were faulted for not including in this matter, the others said to be omitted so that they can speak for themselves. The Exparte Applicants cannot, it was stated, purport to speak for the others. 13.Concerning the allegations made by the 2nd Exparte Applicant – the allegation being that she was denied evidence during appeal hearing – the Interested Party stated that he has not seen an affidavit by that party complaining about the issue. Her allegation was termed to be hearsay and unfounded. Her presence in this matter was also challenged on the ground that she was not a party in the appeal. It was pointed out too that the Exparte Applicants did not complain about the exclusion of others when the appeal was being heard. 14.The Interested Party further stated that the disputed parcels of land is where he calls home and has lived there since birth. The decision that was made by the appellate forum was said to have cured an injustice that the Land Adjudication Officer had perpetrated against him. 15.The response by the Interested Party provoked the filing of a supplementary affidavit by the 1st Exparte Applicant. In it, he reiterated that the decision made was biased and unfair. He further stated that he and his witnesses were not given enough time to give evidence. Further, the proceedings as recorded were said to be inaccurate. The 1st Ex-parte Applicant also talked of being denied to present his documents and being denied to point out his developments on the disputed land during a site visit. 16.The matter was canvassed by way of written submissions. The submissions of the Exparte Applicants are dated 19/2/2025. The said submissions started by giving an overview of the entire matter. Focus then shifted and one of the first issues to be raised by the respondents namely, that the decision had not been attached to the application, was given priority. According to the Exparte Applicants, it is true that under Order 53 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, the decision should be attached to the application. But it was also pointed that the same provision envisages a situation where the decision is not attached. In such case, what is required is a good explanation as to why that has not been done. The explanation should be one that satisfies the court. 17.The Ex-parte Applicants explained that they tried in vain to get the decision from the respondents. It was submitted that the requirements can be waived where a good explanation is given. In this case, it was said that it is conceded that the decision exists. For guidance, the case of Republic v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Transport & Infrastructure & 4 others, Exparte Ali Golle & Another [2018] eKLR, was cited. The Exparte Applicants even tried to flip the issue by pointing out that they themselves were wronged because they asked for the decision from the respondents and were not given yet they have a legal right both under the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015, to be furnished with the decision. 18.On the averment by the respondent that the Adjudication Act does not obligate the Minister to conduct a hearing at the appellate level, the Exparte Applicants submitted that while the procedure of handling an appeal is not provided for, the case of Mahaja –vs- Khatwalo & Another [1983] eKLR is authority for the position that where a hearing is commenced at the appeal stage, then the whole process has to be concluded in that manner. It was further pointed out that Mutungi, J. (as he then was) observed in Robert Muli Matolo –vs- Director of Land Adjudication & 2 others [2014] eKLR that as an appeal before the Minister is a quasi-judicial process, the Civil Procedure Rules should apply. To reinforce their argument, the Exparte Applicants pointed out that the Adjudication Act is essentially an old statute and it should be read now in light of the provisions of Article 47 of the Constitution and Section 2 of the Fair Administrative Action Act both of which emphasize the need for hearing and use of fair procedure. 19.More particularly, it was emphasized that at the objection level, the interested party had filed his dispute against seven (7) parties. It then seems odd that the appeal was only against one party – MULONZYA MATHUKU – 1st Exparte Applicant. It was said to be wrong for the Interested Party to argue that the others were children and wife of that party. According to the Exparte Applicants, the appeal should have included all the others. The fact that a decision was made that affected even the others meant that those others were condemned unheard, the Exparte Applicants submitted. 20.Reference was also made to a decided case – Kitui SRMC Land Case No. 20 of 1989 – which was said to have been handled in violation of Section 30 of Land Adjudication Act. Section 30 requires that consent of Land Adjudication office be obtained first before filing a suit in a court of law if the suit relates to land within an adjudication area. The Exparte Applicants explained that the case was done in 1990 while the area came under adjudication in the year 2013. The submissions of the Exparte Applicants are that consent could possibly not have been obtained concerning a dispute that took place twenty-three (23) years before the area became under adjudication. 21.Ultimately, the court was asked to allow the application for judicial review. 22.The Interested Party’s submissions are dated 25/3/2025. After some prefatory remarks which included a brief background of the matter, the issues for determination were said to be two (2). The first issue is whether the 2nd respondent’s decision was made contrary to the rules of natural justice while the second and final one is whether the Exparte Applicants should get the prayers they are seeking. 23.It was thereafter submitted that the powers of the Minister to deal with an appeal are provided for under Section 29 (1) of the Land Adjudication Act (Cap 284). It was stated that the orders made by the Minister are supposed to be final. The Interested Party submitted that the only way to challenge such order is by way of judicial review. What is before this court was said to be an appeal disguised as judicial review. The reason for taking this position is said to be that the Exparte Applicants are allegedly challenging the merits of the Minister’s decision instead of the procedure used to arrive at the decision. It was emphasized that Judicial Review concerns itself with the decision making process and not the merits of a decision. To reinforce the point made, the cases of Municipal Council of Mombasa –vs- Republic & Umoja Consultants Limited. Civil Appeal No. 185 of 2001 & Isaac Gathungu Wanjohi & Another –vs- Director of City Planning of Nairobi & Another eKLR were cited and quoted as deemed necessary. 24.Noting that the Exparte Applicants pointed out various ways in which the rules of natural justice were violated, the Interested Party submitted that proof of these allegations was not made available. To substantiate the position taken, it was for instance pointed out that the Exparte Applicants alleged that only the 1st Exparte Applicant was called to give evidence during the appeal. The Interested Party faulted the Exparte Applicants for not making available the relevant proceedings to demonstrate whether this was the case. The Interested Party further stated that if the other parties felt left out they should have made an oral application before the Minister or even written a letter to express their desire to be included or joined in the proceedings. 25.It was submitted also that the law does not provide for the procedure to be used by the Minister. The case of Republic –vs- Deputy County Commissioner, Makueni & 3 others; Matolo (Exparte Applicant) ELCJR E021 of 2022 was cited and quoted. In the matter at hand, the procedure used was said to be fair. The 1st Exparte Applicant was said to have been allowed to give evidence and also call witnesses. A site visit was also said to have been conducted. 26.It was said that the focus of the court should be to establish whether there is illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. Where these are not established, the court should take the position that decisions made are proper. To illustrate this, the case of Republic –vs- National Water Conservation & Pipeline Corporation & 11 Others was cited. It was emphasized too that the role of the court in judicial review matter is supervisory. This supervisory role concerns itself with finding out whether the power or authority given is or has been lawfully exercised. While playing the role the court is more interested in the process than the outcome. The cases of Republic v Public Procurement Adminstrative Review Board & Another: Premier Verification Quality Sevices (PVQS) Limited (Interested Party) Exparte Austria; Turk [2020] eKLR and Republic of Kenya v Deputy County Commissioner Tharaka South & 3 Others: Kiria (Interested Party) Mangaara (Exparte): Judicial Review E006 of 2021 [2022] were cited as good examples to illustrate the point. 27.The court was finally asked to dismiss this matter. 28.The Respondent’s submissions are dated 21/1/2022. The submissions were filed in respect of a judgement delivered by this court on 29/1/2022. That judgement was set aside vide a Ruling dated 16/5/2024. It is clear that the respondent wishes that the same submissions be used for purposes of this judgement. 29.In the submissions the respondent takes the position that the Exparte Applicants do not have authority to represent the parties who are shown as demarcated owners of the disputed land parcels and are not parties in this matter. The court was urged to omit the parcels in which such parties are owners in case it decides to allow the Exparte Applicants matter. 30.It was submitted that the Land Adjudication Act does not provide for the procedure to be adopted by the Minister in deciding an appeal. Further observation by the respondents is that where a party wishes to be heard by the Minister at the appellate stage, Rule 44 (4) of the Land Adjudication Regulations, require that leave to do so be sought first before the Minister. The emphasis here by the respondent is that it is not an automatic right of a party to be heard. The Exparte Applicants were therefore deemed to be wrong for assuming that they had a right to be heard. 31.The respondent also took the position that the earlier court proceedings in Kitui SRMC Land Case No. 20 of 1989 were invalid as they were conducted without the consent required under Section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act. 32.Lastly, it was pointed out that the Exparte Applicants had failed or omitted to annex to their application the decision they are challenging in this matter. Failure to do that was said to be contrary to Order 53 Rule 7 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. 33.I have considered the application herein, the responses made by the opposing sides, the supplementary affidavit filed by the 1st Exparte Applicant, and the rival submissions on record. I think I am called upon to make a determination on the following issues:1.Whether the decision made in the Minister’s Appeal was in violation of the rules of natural justice.2.Whether what is before me is essentially an appeal disguised as a judicial review matter.3.Who should bear the costs. 34.Natural justice is principally about fairness. It consists of principles designed to ensure fair procedure or practice in decision making. In Haslbury Laws of England Volume 1 (1) at page 218, the concept of natural justice is stated thus:“Natural justice comprises two basic rules; first that no man is to be a judge in his own cause (nemojudex in causa sua), and second that no man is to be condemned unheard (audi alteram partem). These rules are concerned with the manner in which the decision is taken rather than with whether or not the decision is correct.” 35.In Msagha v Chief Justice & 7 Others: [2006] 2 KLR 553 the court observed thus:“…. An essential requirement for the performance of any judicial or quasi-judicial function is that the decision makers observe the principle of natural justice. A decision is unfair if the decision maker deprives himself of the views of the person who will be affected by the decision. If indeed the principles of natural justice are violated in respect of any decision, it is indeed immaterial whether the same decision would have been arrived at in the absence of the departure from the essential principles of natural justice. The decision must be declared to be no decision…”After making this observation, the court continued:“… It is paramount at this juncture that this court establishes the ingredients and/or components of natural justice. The principles of natural justice concern procedural fairness and ensure a fair decision is reached by an objective decision maker. Maintaining procedural fairness protects the rights of individual and enhances public confidence in the process. The ingredients of fairness or natural justice that must guide all administrative decisions are firstly, that a person must be allowed an adequate opportunity to present their case where certain right and interests may be adversely affected by a decision maker; secondly, that no one ought to be judge in his or her case and this is the requirement that the deciding authority must be unbiased when according the hearing or making the decision; and thirdly, that an administrative decision must be based upon logical proof or evidence material.” 36.The principles of natural justice not only apply to court processes and operations but also to tribunals, Government Agencies, and other public bodies if and whenever the decisions made may affect individual and/or fundamental rights, interest, or legitimate expectations. The principles are themselves not rigid and remain largely uncodified. They are flexible and apply in varying degrees depending on context, the applicable law, or circumstances of the matter at hand. Their overarching objective is to prevent miscarriage of justice, ensure procedural fairness, and promote accountability and transparency. 37.There are many ways in which compliance with natural justice requirements is enforced in our court system. One of the ways is judicial review which is the option invoked here. Judicial review is usually more focused on or concerned with the processes used to arrive at a decision. In Republic –vs- Attorney General& 4 others: Exparte Diamond Hashim Lalji & Ahmed Hsham Lalji [2014] eKLR the court observed as follows:“Judicial review applications do not deal with the merits of the case but only with the process. In other words, judicial review only determines whether the decision makers had the jurisdiction, whether the persons affected by the decision were heard before it was made and whether in making the decision the maker took into account relevant matters or did take into account irrelevant matters. It follows that where an applicant brings judicial review proceedings with a view to determining contested matters of facts and in effect urges the court to determine the merits of two or more different versions presented by the parties, the court would not have jurisdiction in a judicial review proceedings to determine such a matter and will leave the parties to resort to normal forums where such matters ought to be resolved. Therefore, Judicial review proceedings are not the proper forum in which the innocence or otherwise of the applicant is to be determined and a party ought not to institute judicial review proceedings with a view to having the court determine his innocence or otherwise. To do so in my view amounts to abuse of the judicial process. The court in judicial review proceedings is mainly concerned with the question of fairness to the applicant …” 38.I now turn to the matter at hand. I note that the appeal filed before the Minister by the Interested Party was only against one party – Mulonzya Mathuku.The parcels of land in dispute are about twenty-five (25) and most of them are demarcated in the names of more than one person. In fact, Mulonzya Mathuku is only demarcated as a single owner for two land parcels only (land parcels No’s 912 and 914). In some other land parcels – like parcel No’s 913 and 915 – Mulonzya Mathuku does not feature as a demarcated owner at all. When it comes to all the other land parcels, Mulonzya Mathuku is shown as an owner but he is not the only owner. He is recorded as owning the land parcels either with Dorothy Mawia Kitangu, Mercy Vaati Mulonzya, Carol Mumbe Mulonzya, Fridah Ndanu Mulonzya, Grace Musenya Mulonzya or Samuel Mumo Mulonzya. 39.In the objection proceedings that gave rise to the appeal before the Minister, all the persons demarcated as owners were included and in fact the outcome properly related to all of them. In the appeal however, the Interested Party left out all the others and decided to move only against Mulonzya Mathuku. The Interested Party seemed to have his own good reason for doing so. According to him all the others are close family members to Mulonzya Mathuku. 40.The appellate forum itself seems to have seen nothing wrong with the manner the appeal was filed. It handled the appeal and made the following decision:“Parcels numbers 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 900, 901, 902, 911, 912, 913, 914, 915, 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921, 922, 923, 924, 925, and 926 be registered under the appellant’s name Mwendwa Kimwele, and the name of the respondent be removed.” 41.The above decision is problematic in more senses than one. Firstly, some land parcels – like parcels No. 913 and 915 – are not even in Mulonzya Mathuku’s name. They are in the names of the 2nd Exparte Applicant – Dorothy Mawia Kitangu. When the decision therefore commands that Mulonzya’s name be removed from these two land parcels, it becomes difficult to see how that can be implemented as there is no such name to be removed from adjudication register of these two parcels. Further, Dorothy Mawia’s name is not ordered to be removed from the adjudication register of the two land parcels. Is the recording officer going to arrogate to himself or herself the power to remove from the record a name that has not been ordered removed? Even assuming that the name of Dorothy Mawia Kitangu was ordered removed, was she accorded an opportunity to be heard?Secondly, all the other land parcels are in the names of Malonzya Mathuku and other people who are not parties to the appeal. If, as ordered in the decision, Mulonzya’s name is removed, the names of the other parties will still remain. If the Interested Party’s name is going to be recorded or inserted, will it be together with the other names that have not been ordered removed? And is that what the Interested Party himself would desire? I guess NOT. And if the names of the others will be removed so that only the Interested Party’s name features on the record, will that be fair given that those others have not been accorded a hearing? 42.The fact of the matter is that if the Interested Party was contesting the outcomes of the objections he had lodged at the objection stage, then his contestation or appeal needed to include all the parties he had named at that stage. These are the same parties who were recorded as owners during demarcation. To assume, seemingly as he did, that one party can carry the burden or assume responsibility for all the others was wrong. That can only be acceptable if the others expressly agree that one person can carry their burden or take responsibility for them. 43.To the extent that the decision made directly affected some people who were not given an opportunity to be heard, then the decision can properly be said to have been made in violation of the principles of natural justice. 44.This alone is enough to make the court allow the application. But there is need to address the second issue, which is that the Exparte Applicants are attacking the merits of the decision rather than the process leading to the decision. It is difficult to accept this averment by the Interested Party. Consider this: The Interested Party had at the objection stage filed his objection against all the parties recorded as owners. At the appellate stage, the Interested Party was claiming all the disputed land parcels whose recorded owners numbered about seven (7) but he only chose one party for appeal purposes. At ground (i) on the face of the application, the Exparte Applicants have stated that “the 2nd Exparte Applicant and the other 5 persons who were party to the objection proceedings were condemned unheard in breach of the rules of natural justice.” Ground (k) thereof is even clearer. It states inter alia, that;“Only the 1st Exparte Applicant was summoned for the hearing yet there were 7 defendants in the objection proceedings….”“The 2nd Exparte Applicant and the other 5 defendants were denied an opportunity to be heard and were therefore condemned unheard.”“When the 2nd Exparte Applicant attended hearing on 11/1/2021 despite not having been served with summons and sought to know why she was not being involved in the appeal, the 2nd respondent denied her audience in a very hostile, condescending and demeaning manner. The 2nd Exparte Applicant had a legitimate expectation that she would be given a chance to be heard which chance was denied by the 2nd respondent.” 45.A look at the excerpts of the grounds stated above does not show that the complaint was about the decision made. It was rather about the denial of the right of hearing and/or exclusion from proceedings that formed the basis of a decision that directly affected them. The allegation therefore that it is the merits of the decision that are being questioned seems less than convincing to this court. 46.There was also an issue about the involvement of 2nd Exparte Applicant in these proceedings yet she was not a party in the appeal before the Minister. The general position in law is clear. A person who is not a formal party to a dispute but is directly affected by a decision made can very properly contest it in a court of law. Our legal system has mechanisms for non-parties who have an identifiable stake or right or interest to challenge the decision that directly affects them. What is required for such party is to demonstrate such stake, interest, or right or to show clearly how they are aggrieved by the decision. In the matter at hand, the 2nd Exparte Applicant is well shown to be recorded as sole owner of two parcels of land and she is recorded as owner together with the 1st Exparte Applicant in respect of several other parcels of land. Quite clearly, the 2nd Exparte Applicant fits the bill of inclusion into this matter very well. She was condemned unheard. 47.A court case – Kitui SRMC Land Case No. 20 of 1989 – was mentioned by the respondents. The complaint by the respondent is that the case was conducted in violation of Section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act, which, among other things, require that consent be obtained from the Land Adjudication Officer before filing or proceeding with a suit involving land falling in an adjudication area. The Exparte Applicants countered this by saying that the suit was done long before the area came under adjudication. I have looked at the proceedings and it is clear that the suit took place long before the area came under adjudication. The allegation by the respondent therefore seems misplaced. If anything, it is the Land Adjudication process itself that is supposed to consider the outcome of that suit in its processes if the suit had reached the stage where it could be said to be properly concluded by the court. 48.The Exparte Applicants also raised the issue of the Interested Party lodging his complaint at the objection stage instead of the Committee stage. The Interested Party countered this by saying that the 2nd Exparte Applicant was actually a member of the committee. This was the Interested Party’s justification for avoiding or jumping that stage. The Adjudication Act foresaw a situation like that and provided as follows at Section 8 (1).”8 (1) If a member of a committee or board has any interest, direct or indirect in the determination of a claim to an interest in land which is before the committee or board (as the case may be) and is present at the meeting of the committee or board at which the determination of that claim is under consideration, he shall at the meeting, as soon as practicable after it begins, disclose his interest and not take part in the consideration or discussion of the claim, nor shall he have vote on any question with respect to the determination of the claim.” 49.It is clear therefore that neither the Interested Party himself nor Adjudication Officer of the area had the right to file or allow filing of a first-instance claim at the objection stage. In fact, the objection stage is for disputes first handled at the committee stage. The law generally is very clear viz: where a mechanism is prescribed for resolving dispute, that mechanism should be adhered to strictly and failure to follow the law may lead to dismissal of the claim. 50.What the Interested Party needed to do was to lodge his claim at the committee stage as the others were doing. He should then have asked for recusal of the 2nd Exparte Applicant. It was not allowable to him or those presiding at objection stage to handle his claim of first instance at that stage. 51.But I hasten to add that my decision in this matter does not turn on this point. It is a point that the Exparte Applicants should have raised at the objection stage itself or during the appeal. It appears clear that it was not raised. It is a belated move or even an afterthought for the Exparte Applicants to raise it here. 52.Given what the court has said so far, it is clear that the Exparte Applicants have proffered enough justification for allowing the application herein. I therefore allow the application in terms of prayer 1. 53.When it comes to costs, the law is that costs follow the event. I see no reason here to depart from this legal position. Accordingly, I also allow prayer 2, which means that costs are awarded to the Exparte Applicants. JUDGEMENT DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT KITUI THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2026.In the presence of,Court Assistant – MusyokiMuigai Musyoka for Ex-Parte ApplicantM/S Musesya for Interested PartyM/S Nyawira (AG’s Office) for the RespondentsA. KANIARUJUDGE- ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT, KITUI