[2018] KEELC 2592 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 2592 (KLR)

The court found that the 1st Respondent failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 26 of the Land Consolidation Act by not involving the Land Committee in the hearing of objection No. 541. The proceedings of 11/9/12, as per the record, did not disclose the presence of any committee members, indicating a clear departure from the statutory process. This procedural irregularity was sufficient to dispose of the judicial review application, rendering the decision of the 1st Respondent invalid. The court therefore allowed the application, quashed the impugned decision, and awarded costs to the Applicant.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 2592 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Land Adjudication Officer, Ankamia Adjudication Section; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General; Interested Party: Patrick Gituma M’Mugwika; Applicant: Solomon Mathiu Nabea
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
28 June 2018
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 2 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
application allowed; decision of 1st Respondent quashed; costs awarded to Applicant
Judges
BC Koech
Legal Topics
Land Adjudication, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Committee Procedure
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Land Adjudication Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Committee Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Land Adjudication Officer, Ankamia Adjudication Section

Respondent

Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Patrick Gituma M’Mugwika

Interested Party

Solomon Mathiu Nabea

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Respondent followed the correct procedure under Section 26 of the Land Consolidation Act in determining objection No. 541.
  2. 2 Whether the ex-parte Applicant was denied a fair hearing during the adjudication process.
  3. 3 Whether the decision of the 1st Respondent was irregular, unreasonable, or illegal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 1st Respondent failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 26 of the Land Consolidation Act by not involving the Land Committee in the hearing of objection No. 541. The proceedings of 11/9/12, as per the record, did not disclose the presence of any committee members, indicating a clear departure from the statutory process. This procedural irregularity was sufficient to dispose of the judicial review application, rendering the decision of the 1st Respondent invalid. The court therefore allowed the application, quashed the impugned decision, and awarded costs to the Applicant.

Court Disposition

application allowed; decision of 1st Respondent quashed; costs awarded to Applicant

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 29/1/13 is allowed.
  • The proceedings and decisions made by the 1st Respondent on 9/11/12 in objection No. 541 are removed and quashed.