Stanley Munga Githunguri v National Land Commission & another [2015] KEELC 698 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court threw out a Kshs. 155 million land compensation award because the National Land Commission gave no reasons for the figure.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Finality of the Commission's award versus constitutional just compensation
The statutory finality of the award under section 113(2) does not oust the court's duty to ensure just compensation under Article 40(3) of the Constitution
Section 113(2)(a) makes the award final and conclusive evidence of the value of land and compensation payable, subject to Article 40(2) of the Constitution and sections 122 and 128 of the Land Act. The court held this finality is subject to the constitutional guarantee of just compensation, so it may examine whether the award meets that standard, particularly where reasons are absent.
Duty to give reasons for the award
The award cannot stand because no reasons were given; the unreasoned figure appears arbitrary and violates Article 47(2) of the Constitution
The Assistant Commissioner gave no reasons for awarding Kshs. 155,398,925/-, making it impossible for the court to evaluate whether he misdirected himself. Article 47(2) guarantees written reasons where administrative action adversely affects a right, and Article 10(2) demands transparency and accountability. An unreasoned decision is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Authority of the Assistant Commissioner and absence of rules on assessment of compensation
It is the Commission that is empowered to make the award under section 113(1), and the Commission should have promulgated rules under section 160(1)(e) to streamline valuation procedure; section 111(2) rules were never made
Section 113(1) vests the power to prepare the written award in the Commission, yet it was unclear under what delegated authority the Assistant Commissioner acted. Section 111(2) required the Commission to make rules regulating the assessment of just compensation, which had not been done, and the court considered rules under section 160(1)(e) necessary.
Legal principles established
#- Although an award of the Commission is final and conclusive under section 113(2) of the Land Act, 2012, the court must consider whether the compensation is 'just compensation' within the meaning of Article 40(3) of the Constitution
- The opinion of the Commission on compensation must be objective and based on objectively ascertainable grounds and reasons; an unreasoned award is arbitrary and unconstitutional
- The duty to give reasons for administrative action is constitutionally enshrined under Article 47(2) and supports the right to fair administrative action under Article 47(1)
Court orders
#- 1.The award of Kshs. 155,398,925/- made by the Assistant Commissioner of Lands is set aside
- 2.The National Land Commission is directed to issue a reasoned award on the basis of clearly ascertainable criteria
- 3.The costs of the appeal are awarded to the Appellant
- On appeal from
- National Land Commission (award by Mr. E.G. Rwigi, Assistant Commissioner of Lands)
- Gazette Notice No. 1190 dated 23rd August 2013 inquiry
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 128 of the Land Act, 2012 (appeal to the Environment and Land Court)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kirinyaga Water & Sanitation Company v Mwangi & another (Environment and Land Appeal E019 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6268 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 6268 (KLR)24 Sept 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stanley Munga Githunguri v National Land Commission & another [2015] KEELC 698 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2015/698/eng@2015-02-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.