Republic v District Land Adjudication Officer Tigania East District; M’twamwari Paul Kangeri & 2 others (Interested Parties) Ex parte Julius Marete Ibutu [2020] KEELC 1269 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court quashed a land objection decision because the owner was never heard and the officer acted without the required committee.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Compliance with the procedural scheme of the Land Consolidation Act in objection proceedings
The objection No. 798 proceedings were flawed because the respondent determined them single-handedly without the aid of the Arbitration Board or committee as required by sections 17, 18 and 26 of the Land Consolidation Act.
The court analysed the statutory scheme: objections touching R.E.R are heard by committees or the Land Adjudication Officer with the aid of the Arbitration Board, while objections to the adjudication register under section 26 must be heard with the aid of a committee. The record showed the respondent acted alone, rendering the process improper and the decision liable to quashing.
Breach of natural justice (audi alteram partem)
The exparte applicant, the absolute owner of parcel No. 1527, was not a party to nor informed of the objection proceedings, breaching natural justice.
The applicant purchased all 13 acres in folio No. 524, which were demarcated to him as parcel No. 1527. The objection proceedings 37 years later could undo his title, yet he was neither joined nor notified. The court agreed with the respondent's concession and the applicant's submissions that the rule audi alteram partem was violated.
Whether the decision had a rational nexus with the evidence
The decision had no nexus with the evidence or the 11 parcels in the objection claim and was therefore devoid of reason.
The objection concerned 11 parcels but the objector mentioned only parcel 2362; the respondents conceded without reference to the parcels. Yet the respondent awarded the objector 6.50 acres from each respondent totalling 30.50 acres. The award was disconnected from the pleadings and evidence, disclosing an irrational decision-making process.
Locus standi of the 3rd interested party
The 3rd interested party, son of the deceased 1st interested party, lacked locus standi as no grant had been issued for the estate.
Joseph Ntongai appeared as son of the 1st interested party who died on 27.2.2014. By his own admission no grant had been issued in respect of his father's estate; he was therefore not a legal representative and could not represent his father's interests. His claim was disregarded.
Legal principles established
#- Objection proceedings under the Land Consolidation Act must be heard with the aid of the relevant committees or Arbitration Board as prescribed; proceedings conducted by the Land Adjudication Officer alone are flawed.
- A person affected by a decision-making process who was not given an opportunity to be heard is denied natural justice.
- A decision not supported by, or having no nexus with, the evidence tendered is devoid of reason and liable to be quashed on judicial review.
- A person who has not obtained a grant of representation lacks locus standi to represent a deceased person's interests.
Court orders
#- 1.An Order of certiorari removing and quashing the whole of the respondent's proceedings, findings and order in objection No. 798 made on 6/2/2014
- 2.An order of prohibition prohibiting implementation of the respondent's decision and orders in objection No. 798 made on 6/2/2014
- 3.The dispute remitted back to the respondent to be heard afresh in accordance with the applicable law
- 4.Each party to bear their own costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules over decisions of the Land Adjudication Officer under the Land Consolidation Act (Cap 283)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v District Land Adjudication Officer Tigania East District; M’twamwari Paul Kangeri & 2 others (Interested Parties) Ex parte Julius Marete Ibutu [2020] KEELC 1269 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Judicial Review Motion (formerly Ex Parte Applicant deceased), Akaiga Land Adjudication Section, Objection No. 798. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1269/eng@2020-09-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.