Republic v National Land Commission Ex-Parte: Lesmat Limited [2019] KEELC 1233 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court quashed the National Land Commission's decision to revoke a private landowner's title because the Commission lacked jurisdiction over private land and never gave the owner notice.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the rules of natural justice were violated
Yes - the applicant was never served with notice or given the opportunity to be heard before the determination affecting its property rights.
The court applied Article 50 and Article 47 of the Constitution and Section 14(3) of the National Land Commission Act, which requires notice. The gazette notice asserted that all interested parties had been invited by public notice in the national dailies, but the respondent filed nothing to prove such advertisements. Following Sceneries Ltd and Mwangi Stephen Muriithi, publication of land reference numbers in a daily is not proper notice. The uncontroverted affidavit evidence established the violation.
Whether the respondent had jurisdiction over the suit land
No - the land was private land, and the National Land Commission's review power under Article 68(c)(v) and Section 14(1) of the NLC Act extends only to public land.
The documentary evidence showed the land was purchased from William Morogo Saina, who was already registered proprietor of the mother parcel, with AFC financing, charges and discharges. The private status predated the applicant's registration. Relying on Ex-parte Cecilia Chepkoech Leting, jurisdiction over private land title legality vests in the Environment and Land Court, not the Commission.
Whether the Commission's decision effected revocation of title or merely recommended it
The gazette notice only recommended revocation by directing the Chief Land Registrar, so it did not effect immediate final revocation - but this did not save the decision given the natural justice and jurisdiction defects.
The court noted the authorities relied on (Robert Mutiso Lelli, Magnate Ventures) for the proposition that only the Registrar may revoke titles, but observed the impugned notice merely directed the Chief Land Registrar to effect revocation. Nevertheless, having found breaches of natural justice and want of jurisdiction, the motion succeeded.
Legal principles established
#- Natural justice applies mandatorily regardless of any statutory provision.
- Where land has acquired the status of private land, only the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to investigate and determine the legality of its title, not the National Land Commission.
- A tribunal must adduce evidence that notice was issued; in the absence of a replying affidavit, the court cannot presume notice was given.
Court orders
#- 1.Certiorari to quash the respondent's decision gazetted as Gazette Notice No. 11714 of 9/11/2018 (and related gazette notices and proceedings) directing review and revocation of title to LR. Nos. 22930/22353
- 2.Prohibition prohibiting the respondent from conducting any hearing, review or revocation of title of the applicant's property
- 3.Prohibition prohibiting the respondent from implementing its decision to revoke the applicant's title and ownership of the property
- 4.The respondent to bear the costs of the proceedings
- 5.Prayer 5 (declaration) declined as leave for it was not obtained
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules (fair hearing under Article 47 and Article 50 of the Constitution engaged)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v National Land Commission Ex-Parte: Lesmat Limited [2019] KEELC 1233 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Republic v National Land Commission, Ex-parte Lesmat Limited (notice of motion dated 26/2/2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/1233/eng@2019-10-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.