Muthara Njuri Ncheke Council of Elders & another v Committee of Ngare Mara/Gambella Adjudication Section & 2 others [2019] KEELC 3355 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court halted land adjudication in areas quietly added by a 2018 corrigendum notice, ruling that expanding adjudication areas requires clear notices and genuine public participation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court has jurisdiction over a challenge to the legitimacy of a corrigendum notice despite section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act
The suit is properly before the court; the dispute challenges the legitimacy of the adjudication process, not purely ascertainment of rights and interests, so consent under section 30 was unnecessary.
The court distinguished between disputes over interests in land, which the Act's dispute resolution mechanisms (sections 12 and 26) address, and disputes over the legality of the adjudication process itself. Relying on its own decision in Meru ELC Petition 7 of 2017 and the Nakuru judicial review authority, it held that challenges to process legitimacy fall outside the Act's internal mechanisms and belong before the court.
Whether the corrigendum notice of 29/6/2018 complied with section 5 of the Land Adjudication Act
The corrigendum expanded the adjudication area beyond the initial notice, was unexplained by the DLASO, and failed the statutory requirement to define the adjudication section clearly.
Comparing the two notices, the court found the corrigendum contained 40 lines versus 17 in the original notice and altered the boundary description, indicating additional areas were included. The DLASO, the officer mandated to ensure compliance with section 5, gave no explanation for the corrigendum or the error it purported to correct; explanation came only from counsel from the bar.
Whether there was public participation in the corrigendum notice
The respondents failed to demonstrate public participation for the corrigendum; documents relied on predated it or concerned unrelated matters.
The prior finding of public participation in Petition 7 of 2017 related only to the 11/3/2016 notice. Annexures EMK3–EMK6 predated the corrigendum and referred only to the Ngaremara/Gambella section; EMK7 and 8 concerned committee disputes. Invoking Article 10 and the Gakuru authorities, the court held public participation must be real, not illusory.
Locus standi and occupation of the suit land
Questions of ownership, occupation and locus cannot be determined at the interlocutory stage and are reserved for the full trial.
The court found the matter hotly contested, with each side questioning the other's identity and standing. Since the dispute is at an infancy stage, these factual questions cannot be resolved on a conservatory application and may be raised at a later stage of the trial.
Legal principles established
#- A notice defining an adjudication section must define the area as clearly as possible; a corrigendum that expands the adjudication area beyond the initial notice without explanation or public participation is unlawful
- A suit questioning the process of land adjudication rather than determination of interests in land does not require consent of the land adjudication officer under section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act
- Public participation must be real and not illusory
Court orders
#- 1.The adjudication process to continue in Ngaremara/Gambella adjudication section but only in respect of the areas covered in the initial notice issued on 11/3/2016
- 2.A conservatory order restraining the respondents from continuing with the adjudication process in the areas added in the corrigendum notice of 29/6/2018 until further directions or until the suit is heard and determined
- 3.Parties directed to file all compliance documents pursuant to order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- 4.The 2nd and 3rd respondents at liberty to undertake mitigation measures geared towards compliance with applicable law
- 5.Suit to be heard on priority basis
- 6.Costs of the application to be determined in the main trial
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional petition jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Land Adjudication Act, Cap 284)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (6)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kinanta & 2 others v Principal Secretary Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development & 7 others (Environment and Land Petition E003 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3713 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 3713 (KLR)18 Jun 2026distinguished
- Mutisya (Suing on his own behalf & as an Administrator of the Estate of Samuel Mutisya Somba) v Land Adjudication Officer, Makueni & 11 others; Mutisya & another (Interested Parties)[2022] KEELC 15501 (KLR)21 Dec 2022
- Antubaita Clan & 4 others v District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer Igembe & others (Petition)[2022] KEELC 3484 (KLR)18 May 2022followed
- Peter Nchebere v M’inanga M’akwalu & 3 others [2021] KEELC 3729 (KLR)[2021] KEELC 3729 (KLR)14 Apr 2021applied
- Isaack Samuel Kiramburi v Land Adj. And Settlement Officer Igembe & 4 others; James Kiritu & 2 others (Interested Parties) [2021] KEELC 4639 (KLR)[2021] KEELC 4639 (KLR)27 Jan 2021followed
- Fatuma Adan Dullo & 4 others v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning & 2 others [2020] KEELC 121 (KLR)[2020] KEELC 121 (KLR)18 Nov 2020applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muthara Njuri Ncheke Council of Elders & another v Committee of Ngare Mara/Gambella Adjudication Section & 2 others [2019] KEELC 3355 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Meru ELC Petition (notice of motion dated 8.4.2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/3355/eng@2019-05-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.