Njeru Mirani & 2 others v Attorney General & 4 others; Andrew Nyaga & 2 others (Interested Parties) [2018] KEELC 240 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court cancelled a land adjudication declaration because the Mbeere community was excluded from the committee, but allowed a fresh, inclusive process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the declaration establishing Kamaindi Adjudication Section was procedurally proper
The declaration and the constitution of the adjudication committee were tainted by discrimination against the Mbeere community; the applicants deserved the prohibitory and mandatory orders sought
The court found, on the pleadings and submissions, that the respondents did not deny discriminating against the applicants, who represented the Mbeere community, in the process of declaring the adjudication section and constituting the committee. The interested parties had argued there was no evidence of exclusion and that the process complied with sections 5 and 6 of the Land Adjudication Act, but the court preferred the applicants' position and granted both prohibition and mandamus, while clarifying that a fresh, rights-compliant declaration could issue.
Legal principles established
#- An administrative process that excludes a significant community from participation in the constitution of an adjudication committee amounts to discrimination warranting judicial review relief
- In public interest litigation the court may decline to award costs to any party
Court orders
#- 1.An order of prohibition prohibiting the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents from effecting Declaration Reference number ADM/LA/4/118 of 4th October, 2012 by the 5th Respondent declaring Kamaindi of Kamaindi Location in Igamba Ng'ombe Division
- 2.An order of mandamus bringing into this court and compelling the Respondents to cancel and remove Declaration Reference Number ADM/LA/4/118 of 4th October, 2012 by the 5th Respondent declaring Kamaindi of Kamaindi Location in Igamba Ng'ombe Division for want of representation
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs, this being public interest litigation
- 4.Clarification that the Respondents may issue another Declaration which does not breach the constitutional rights of the applicants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 8 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njeru Mirani & 2 others v Attorney General & 4 others; Andrew Nyaga & 2 others (Interested Parties) [2018] KEELC 240 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Judicial Review (Notice of Motion dated 20th September, 2013). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/240/eng@2018-12-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.