Republic v National Land Commission Ex-Parte Kijiji Properties Limited & others [2017] KEELC 2540 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the NLC's Section 14 review process was sub-judice Nairobi HCCC No. 428 of 2009
The investigations were sub-judice because the issues the Commission purported to discover were the same issues pending in the pending suit, in which the Commission is the successor of the 2nd Defendant (Commissioner of Lands).
The court compared the issues raised in the Commission's investigations with the Plaint in Nairobi HCCC No. 428 of 2009 and found them identical - namely that the grant to Baywater Investments Limited was fraudulently issued. The Commission is the successor of the Commissioner of Lands, already a defendant in that suit. Parallel adjudication of the same title question would therefore offend the sub-judice principle.
Whether the NLC has locus standi to commence parallel review proceedings under Section 14
The Commission lacks locus standi to commence parallel proceedings where the propriety of the title can only be interrogated by the court in the pending suit.
Applying its earlier decision in Republic v National Land Commission, Ex-parte Holborn Properties Limited, the court held that once a land dispute is filed in court, the Commission is obliged to participate in those proceedings or abide by the court's decision. Its proper role is limited to availing its evidence to the court, not conducting parallel adjudication.
Whether the distinction between ownership of land and legality of title divides the Commission's mandate from the court's
The court rejected the distinction, holding the two issues are one and the same.
The Respondent argued that reviewing the legality of the grant was unrelated to the ownership dispute before the High Court. The court held that since the Commission admitted it was investigating the propriety of the Applicant's title following complaints by the same parties litigating ownership in HCCC No. 428 of 2009, the issues could not be separated. The other issues raised were therefore not addressed.
Legal principles established
#- Once a dispute over title to land is before the court, the National Land Commission must participate in or abide by those proceedings and cannot reopen the issue of legality of title in parallel proceedings.
- Where the issues a commission is investigating are the same issues pending before a court, the commission lacks locus standi to conduct parallel proceedings.
Court orders
#- 1.Judicial review orders of certiorari to quash the Respondent's Notice contained in the letter dated 18th October, 2016
- 2.Judicial review orders of prohibition restraining the Respondent from investigating, reviewing and/or adjudicating any claims relating to the Ex-parte Applicant's ownership of L.R. 21215 Mavoko
- 3.Application dated 27th October, 2016 allowed as prayed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court/Environment and Land Court (orders of certiorari and prohibition); Article 165(6) of the Constitution raised by the Interested Parties
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v National Land Commission Ex-Parte Kijiji Properties Limited & others [2017] KEELC 2540 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Judicial Review Application dated 27th October, 2016 (Machakos). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/2540/eng@2017-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.