Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC Judicial Review Suit (Notice of Motion dated 19th February 2018), Meru· [2019] KEELC 1629 (KLR)

Republic v County Government of Meru; Bernard Mwongela (Interested Party) Ex-parte Mwenda Miathene Women Group [2019] KEELC 1629 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
25 September 2019
3,554 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

County governments cannot be forced to decide land ownership disputes—Kenya's land court confirmed such cases belong in ordinary courts.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The ex-parte applicant, Mwenda Miathene Women Group, moved the Court by Notice of Motion dated 19th February 2018 seeking an order of mandamus compelling the County Government of Meru to direct its planning and markets committee (or the Town Administrator) to re-hear its ownership dispute with the interested party, Bernard Mwongela, over plot No. 51 Miathene Market. The dispute had first been resolved by the Nyambene County Council's Town Planning and Markets Committee in 2012, but in Meru ELC JR No. 14 of 2012 Cherono J quashed that decision on 20th June 2017 for breach of natural justice, leaving the dispute unresolved. The respondent opposed, arguing it had no statutory jurisdiction over land ownership or forgery disputes; the interested party argued res judicata. The court framed four issues: res judicata, re-hearing and jurisdiction, ADR, and costs. It held the suit was not res judicata because the relief sought (mandamus) differed from the earlier certiorari proceedings and the underlying dispute remained unresolved. However, it distinguished Peter Kimandiu, holding that no statute cloaks the county government with mandate to determine land ownership disputes, Part 2 of the Fourth Schedule notwithstanding, and mandamus compels only statutory public duties. The claim for mandamus was accordingly dismissed. The court directed that, for limitation purposes, time runs from the date of judgment, and ordered each party to bear its own costs, observing the dispute should be litigated in the ordinary courts.

Key legal issues

#
01

Res judicata

Holding

The suit is not res judicata to Meru ELC JR No. 14 of 2012 despite same parties and subject matter, because the relief sought (mandamus to re-hear) differs from the earlier relief (certiorari to quash) and the underlying dispute remains unresolved.

Reasoning

The court accepted that the parties (with interchanged positions) and the suit parcel are the same in both suits. However, judicial review concerns the decision-making process: the earlier suit challenged the process by way of certiorari, whereas the present suit seeks mandamus compelling a fresh hearing. Since the issues differ and the actual dispute remains unresolved, the elements of res judicata, including that the issue was directly and substantially in issue and finally determined, are not met.

p. 4
02

Jurisdiction of the County Government of Meru to re-hear the dispute

Holding

The respondent has no statutory jurisdiction to determine land ownership disputes or allegations of forgery; Part 2 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution does not provide for determination of land ownership disputes, and no statute obliges the county to hear such disputes.

Reasoning

The court distinguished the Peter Kimandiu decision, where remittal was possible because the Land Adjudication Officer had a clear statutory mandate under the Land Consolidation Act. Here no statute assigns the dispute to any county entity, and the Town Planning and Markets Committee's prior involvement did not confer jurisdiction on the county government. Mandamus therefore cannot issue because it compels only statutory public duties, and no such duty exists here.

p. 4
03

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Holding

Although Article 159(2)(c) promotes ADR, the order of mandamus sought is a command, inconsistent with consensual ADR processes; the dispute should be litigated in the ordinary courts.

Reasoning

The court acknowledged that the Constitution elevates ADR, but noted that ADR rests on settlement, mediation, arbitration, negotiation and conciliation, not force. Mandamus in its nature is a command, so the orders sought were not in tandem with ADR processes. The proper remedy for the parties is to establish their legal rights in a court of law, and to protect them from limitation, time was directed to run from the date of judgment.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Mandamus issues only to compel performance of a public duty imposed by statute; it cannot issue where no statutory duty exists.
  • County governments lack a statutory body clothed with mandate to determine land ownership disputes; such disputes belong to the ordinary courts.
  • A suit seeking mandamus to re-hear a quashed dispute is not res judicata of the earlier suit which sought certiorari, since the issues differ and the underlying dispute remains unresolved.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 19th February 2018 seeking an order of mandamus is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear its own costs of the suit
  3. 3.For purposes of limitation of actions, time runs as from the date of delivery of the judgment

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(c) / Article 159 2, (3)
  • Constitution of KenyaPart 2 of the Fourth Schedule
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 7
  • Law Reform ActSections 8 and 9 (Cap 26)
  • Land Consolidation Act
  • Land Adjudication Act

Cases cited (5)

  • Peter Kimandiu vs Land Adjudication Officer Tigania East District and 4 others
    Nyeri Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2015
  • Republic vs the Principal Secretary State Department of Interior, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government and others
    (2018) eKLR
  • Republic vs KNEC exparte Gathinji and Others
    Civil Appeal No. 234 of 1996
  • Republic vs. Kenya National Examinations Council ex parte Gathenji & Others
    Civil Appeal No. 266 of 1996
  • Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission vs Maina Kiai & 5 others
    Nairobi CA Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2017 eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court/ELC under the Law Reform Act (Cap 26) and relevant civil procedure provisions; dispute concerning land within Miathene Market, Meru County

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v County Government of Meru; Bernard Mwongela (Interested Party) Ex-parte Mwenda Miathene Women Group [2019] KEELC 1629 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). ELC Judicial Review Suit (Notice of Motion dated 19th February 2018), Meru. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/1629/eng@2019-09-25

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