Republic v National Land Commission & another Ex Parte Stephen Kimani Mihiu [2018] KEELC 593 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court quashed the National Land Commission's attempt to revoke a landowner's title because he was never given a hearing before the decision was made.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant's title to Ruiru Township/20 was validly registered
The Applicant is the registered owner of the suit property, his certificate of lease being prima facie proof of absolute and indefeasible ownership under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act.
Annexture SKM-1(a) showed the Applicant was registered as proprietor on 8th November 2012, having purchased the parcel from Jackson Kabingu Gichuchi under a sale agreement dated 10th July 2012. Under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act the certificate of lease is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership, challengeable only for fraud, misrepresentation, illegality, irregularity or corrupt acquisition. No such grounds were established.
Whether the National Land Commission's decision revoking the title was tainted with illegality and procedural impropriety
The decision was illegal, ultra vires and procedurally improper: it was made after the sole complaint had been withdrawn and without giving the Applicant an opportunity to be heard as required by Section 14(3) of the National Land Commission Act.
The only complaint, by Versityville Residents Association, was withdrawn by letter dated 12th April 2017, the Association confirming it had no claim over Ruiru Township/20 but over Ruiru/Ruiru East Block 7/20. The Commission nonetheless directed revocation. The Respondents filed no response explaining the revocation or denying that the Applicant was unheard. Section 14(3) enjoins the Commission to give an affected person an opportunity to appear and inspect documents. Failure condemned the Applicant unheard, breaching natural justice and exceeding jurisdiction.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for judicial review must show that the decision complained of is tainted with illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.
- A certificate of lease/title is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership, challengeable only on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, illegality, irregularity or corrupt acquisition.
- In judicial review the court is concerned only with the process leading to the decision, not the merits; the court does not sit as an appeal court over the decision-maker.
Court orders
#- 1.Order of certiorari to bring into the High Court and quash the decision of the 1st Respondent contained in the Kenya Gazette Notice No.6865 of 17th July 2017 directing the Chief Land Registrar to revoke the Applicant's title to land parcel Ruiru Township/20
- 2.Costs of the application to the Exparte Applicant, to be met by the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 53 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (judicial review jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v National Land Commission & another Ex Parte Stephen Kimani Mihiu [2018] KEELC 593 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment (Judicial Review Notice of Motion dated 7th November 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/593/eng@2018-11-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.