Rivera Properties Limited v National Land Commission; Armstrong Fred Kasuku (Interested Party) [2019] KEELC 5040 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's National Land Commission cannot investigate land disputes already before the Environment and Land Court, as its mandate covers historical injustices only.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the National Land Commission had jurisdiction to entertain and investigate the Interested Party's complaint founded on Sections 50, 51, 52 and 53 of the Land Registration Act
The Respondent acted without jurisdiction; those sections vest jurisdiction in the Environment and Land Court, and the complaint did not allege any historical injustice which could engage the Commission's mandate.
The Interested Party's complaint was that he was a creditor within the meaning of Sections 50-53 of the Land Registration Act. The court held that such complaints fall to the Environment and Land Court. The complaint was not founded on historical injustice, which is the Commission's constitutional mandate. Proceeding under those sections was therefore ultra vires and illegal.
Whether the decision to summon the directors of the Ex-parte Applicant was irrational given pending proceedings before the Environment and Land Court
The decision to summon the directors was irrational because the Respondent knew the same dispute was the subject of ELC No. 40 of 2014 pending before the Environment and Land Court.
The Respondent had been informed that the matter it sought to investigate was already before the Court in ELC No. 40 of 2014. Despite that knowledge, it summoned the directors of the Ex-parte Applicant. Acting in parallel on a live dispute before the ELC amounted to gross unreasonableness amounting to irrationality under the Pastoli test.
Legal principles established
#- A judicial review applicant must show that the decision or act complained of is tainted with illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.
- The jurisdiction over complaints of creditors under Sections 50, 51, 52 and 53 of the Land Registration Act vests in the Environment and Land Court, not the National Land Commission.
Court orders
#- 1.An Order of Prohibition directed at the National Land Commission, its agents, servants and/or employees restraining them from investigating, determining, conducting an inquiry, or seeking written statements from Rivera Properties Limited's officers, agents and/or employees in relation to the complaint lodged by Armstrong Fred Kasuku in respect of L.R Number 1/1357 (Original Number 1/390), Nairobi County
- 2.An Order of Prohibition directed at the National Land Commission restraining it from exercising or purporting to exercise jurisdiction and/or powers over L.R Number 1/1357 (Original Number 1/390), Nairobi County
- 3.An Order of Certiorari removing into the Court and quashing the decision of the National Land Commission to conduct any inquiry or investigations on L.R Number 1/1357 (Original Number 1/390), Nairobi County
- 4.Costs of the application to be paid by the Respondent and the Interested Party
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court/Environment and Land Court under the Law Reform Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules; review of exercise of statutory powers under Article 67 of the Constitution and the National Land Commission Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rivera Properties Limited v National Land Commission; Armstrong Fred Kasuku (Interested Party) [2019] KEELC 5040 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). ELC (Judicial Review) No. 1246 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/5040/eng@2019-04-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.