Republic v National Irrigation Board & another; Felicita Micere Cubi & 2 others (Interested Parties) Chubi Kangangi Ex Parte [2019] KEELC 916 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Mwea rice farmer lost his court challenge because the dispute committee had heard him fairly and had already implemented its land-sharing decision.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether certiorari should issue to quash the Disputes Arbitration Committee's decision
Certiorari refused - the applicant was heard and the committee acted within its mandate
The minutes of the Disputes Arbitration Committee of 9th July 2015 showed the Ex-parte Applicant was present, and he admitted in his affidavit that he appeared before the Committee. He was given an opportunity to be heard, satisfying the rules of natural justice. The holding had belonged to the late Kangangi Mabuti, of whom the applicant was the legal successor, and the evidence showed he had two wives, one complaining of being denied access to cultivate. The Committee equitably shared the 4-acre holding between the two houses (1.5 acres each) and the applicant (1 acre). Certiorari lies only for excess of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice, neither of which was established.
Whether prohibition should issue against the Respondents
Prohibition refused - the decision had already been made and implemented
Prohibition is forward-looking: it stops a wrong from being committed or continuing. The Respondents had already made the decision subdividing the rice holding into 1972 (A), (B) and (C); the tenant cards and licences had been issued to the Interested Parties. With the decision fully implemented, there was nothing remaining to be prohibited. The Court adopted the Court of Appeal's exposition in the Kenya National Examination Council case on the scope of prohibition orders and concluded the application lacked merit.
Legal principles established
#- Certiorari will issue only where a decision was made without or in excess of jurisdiction or where the rules of natural justice were not complied with
- Prohibition is directed at stopping future or continuing proceedings in excess of jurisdiction and does not lie to correct a wrong decision already made on the merits
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 18th December 2015 is dismissed
- 2.The Ex-parte Applicant shall bear the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 53 Rules 1, 2 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 8 & 9 of the Law Reform Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v National Irrigation Board & another; Felicita Micere Cubi & 2 others (Interested Parties) Chubi Kangangi Ex Parte [2019] KEELC 916 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Judicial Review application, Notice of Motion dated 18th December 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/916/eng@2019-10-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.