Republic v Land Adjudication Officer, Igembe North and South District & another Exparte Joshua Muruyu M’Ikiara [2018] KEELC 912 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court

31 October 2018

ECE. C. Cherono LMLucy N. Mbugua

1,553 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

Kenya's Environment and Land Court quashed a land adjudication decision because the affected parties were never heard and no required committee sat.

What this practically means

Executive summary

The ex parte Applicant sought judicial review orders of certiorari to quash the proceedings, findings and decision of the Land Adjudication Officer, Igembe North and South District, dated 27th June 2014 in Objection No. 606 in respect of Land Parcel No. 173 in Akirang'ondu 'B' Adjudication Section. He contended the objection was heard in his absence while he was seriously sick, without the aid of a committee as required by the Land Consolidation Act Cap. 283, and in an improper and unprocedural manner. The Interested Party maintained the Applicant was present with witnesses and represented by his brother, and that the committee was properly constituted, noting a prior JR Case No. 90 of 2011. The court examined the record of the objection proceedings and found no indication of any committee members being present or named, contrary to Section 9(1) of the Land Consolidation Act which requires a committee of at least twenty-five members, and Section 11(2) which requires the committee to apply customary law. The record further showed the Interested Party himself was bed-ridden with a stroke and did not participate in a hearing affecting his land rights. Relying on Catherine Muthoni Kiriungi and Peter Kimandiu, the court held that condemning a person unheard breached the cardinal principle of natural justice and that the Land Adjudication Officer had usurped the committee's mandate. The court found the proceedings and decision unprocedural, allowed the Notice of Motion, and issued an order of certiorari quashing the impugned decision, with costs awarded against the Respondent and the Interested Party jointly and severally.

Key legal issues

Denial of the right to be heard in adjudication objection proceedings

Holding

The impugned proceedings condemned the Applicant unheard; the Interested Party himself did not participate as his witness stated he was bed-ridden with stroke

Reasoning

The record of the objection showed the Interested Party's witness testifying that the Interested Party was bed-ridden and suffering from stroke, indicating he did not participate in a hearing that would adversely affect his right to land. The Applicant was likewise condemned unheard, breaching natural justice.

p. 2

Composition of the committee hearing an Adjudication Register objection

Holding

The objection was heard without any committee members present or named, contrary to Sections 9 and 11 of the Land Consolidation Act, rendering the decision unprocedural and without jurisdiction

Reasoning

Section 9(1) of the Land Consolidation Act requires the objection to be heard by a committee of at least twenty-five members, and Section 11(2) requires that committee to apply customary law. The proceedings showed no attendance or names of committee members, so the 1st Respondent usurped the committee's mandate and the decision could not stand.

p. 2

Legal principles established

Failing to notify a person of an objection whose outcome would affect his interest in land is condemning a person without a hearing, a cardinal principle of natural justice
Section 9(1) of the Land Consolidation Act requires an Adjudication Register objection to be heard by a committee comprising at least twenty-five members

Court orders

1.An order of certiorari issued calling and bringing into the Honourable Court and quashing the proceedings, findings and decision of the 1st Respondent in objection No. 606 in respect of Land Parcel No. 173 situate in Akirang'ondu 'B' Adjudication Section
2.Costs of the application and the chamber summons to be borne by the Respondent and the Interested Party jointly and severally

Authorities

Legislation

Civil Procedure RulesOrder 53 Rules 1, 2 and 4
Law Reform Act Cap. 26 Laws of KenyaSections 8 and 9
Land Consolidation Act Cap. 283 Laws of KenyaSections 9(1), 11 and 12

Cases cited (2)

Catherine Muthoni Kiriungi & Another v The Chairman, Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer & 3 Others
CA No. 21 of 2016 (Unreported)
Peter Kimandiu v Land Adjudication Officer, Tigania East District & 4 Others
CA No. 28 of 2015

Jurisdiction invoked: Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act Cap. 26 Laws of Kenya and Order 53 Rules 1, 2 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules (judicial review)

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Land Adjudication Officer, Igembe North and South District & another Exparte Joshua Muruyu M’Ikiara [2018] KEELC 912 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). JR. No. 18 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/912/eng@2018-10-31

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.