County Government of Meru & another v Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer, Tigania East Sub-County & another

The court acknowledged that some complaints (ultra vires decision, committee composition, consent under section 30) were judicial review issues, but the questions whether the suit land is unregistered community land and which law applies are constitutional questions properly raised by petition. The petition was brought in public interest under Articles 22 and 258, so the petitioners had locus standi and no section 30 consent was required.

The 1st Interested Party argued no Act declared the land community land, but its own account showed community members had occupied and used the land for decades pursuant to 'gathering' with a common interest in obtaining title - evidence of a similar community of interest under Article 63(1). The claim is anchored in ancestry, falling under Article 63(2)(d); the land is unregistered community land.

The adjudication notice was issued in March 2016, six months before the Community Land Act came into force, and no provision of that Act is retrospective. The saving and transitional provisions confirm continuation of adjudication processes. Significantly, the Community Land Act repealed the Trust Land Act and Land (Group Representatives) Act but not the Land Adjudication Act or Land Consolidation Act, showing no ouster was intended.

The word 'MAY' in section 3 is discretionary and no manner of making the request or order is prescribed; under Article 159(2)(d) justice is administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities. Countervailing factors - holistic interpretation, the 50-year history of delay, legitimate expectation, inter- and intra-generational equity, the right to development, public funds already spent, and the stage of the process (229 parcels demarcated) - outweigh invalidation.

The residents sensitised the public through chiefs, held a widely attended baraza, elected committee members from sub-units in the presence of the Deputy County Commissioner and chiefs, and no resident complained of ignorance of the process. The petitioners led no evidence to counter this. The case was distinguished from Gitson Energy, where residents were not consulted.

The petitioners failed to respond to allegations of prior attempts at land grabbing by county officials, did not even acknowledge Judicial Review No. 100 of 2010, and painted an empty land devoid of people. Proposed townships and projects are accommodated within adjudication, so halting the process served no community interest and would perpetuate historical injustices against the people of Muthara/Ngare Mara.