Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedPetition dated 21st October 2016 (re L.R No. 12928)· [2019] KEELC 5106 (KLR)

Panari Centre Limited v National Land Commission & 2 others (Petition 1303 of 2016) [2019] KEELC 5106 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
24 January 2019
2,651 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court declined to expand a landowner's compulsory acquisition case to a three-judge bench because the legal questions were already settled by existing precedents.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioner, owner of land comprised in title No. L.R No. 12928 (also referred to as L.R No. 12918) on which it operates a 5-star hotel, filed a petition in October 2016 challenging the intended compulsory acquisition of a 0.0343-hectare portion for construction of a JKIA Turn Off-Likoni Road project foot bridge base and a Bus Rapid Transit Station. It sought declarations of violations of Articles 40, 46 and 47, certiorari quashing Gazette Notice No. 809 of 10th November 2015, mandamus against the Registrar of Titles, and prohibitions against the construction. Before the substantive hearing, the petitioner moved by Notice of Motion dated 23rd November 2017 for a certificate under section 21(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act read with Article 165(3) and (4) of the Constitution that the petition raised substantial questions of law warranting a bench of an uneven number of judges not less than three. It relied on Del Monte Kenya Ltd, Kalpana Rawal and Okiya Omtatah Okoiti v Attorney General. The 2nd respondent opposed, terming the application an afterthought and a dilatory tactic. Justice S. Okong'o adopted the Court of Appeal's test in Okiya Omtatah Okoiti v Anne Waiguru, drawing on Chunilal Mehta, that a substantial question of law is one of general public importance or one not settled, not free from difficulty, or calling for discussion of alternative views. Holding the petition raised no novel issue and no peculiar issue of public importance, the court dismissed the application on 24th January 2019 with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the petition raises substantial questions of law warranting certification under Article 165(4) and section 21(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act

Holding

The application was dismissed; the petition raises no novel or difficult question of law of public importance

Reasoning

The court adopted the Court of Appeal's formulation in Okiya Omtatah Okoiti v Anne Waiguru, drawing on the Indian Supreme Court's test in Chunilal Mehta. The petition concerns the extent of Government's power of compulsory acquisition and the petitioner's property rights. These are settled matters with numerous precedents, and the court discerned no issue of public importance peculiar to the petition, so a three-judge bench was unnecessary.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A substantial question of law is one of general public importance or one that directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties, is not finally settled, is not free from difficulty, or calls for discussion of alternative views
  • A petition raising settled questions of law with numerous precedents to guide the court does not warrant certification for empanelment under Article 165(4)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated November 23, 2017 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs to be in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 165(3) and (4) of the Constitution as read with section 21(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Panari Centre Limited v National Land Commission & 2 others (Petition 1303 of 2016) [2019] KEELC 5106 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Petition dated 21st October 2016 (re L.R No. 12928). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/5106/eng@2019-01-24

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