Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedPetition No. 11 of 2018 (Meru ELC) - as filed 24/09/2018· [2020] KEELC 2293 (KLR)

Stephen Kirimi M’rinturi v Land Adjudication and Settlements Officer – Igembe District & 3 Others; Peter Kumbu Kimunya & Another (Interested Parties) [2020] KEELC 2293 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
21 May 2020
LMLucy N. Mbugua
3,897 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~16 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioner sought declarations that the decisions of adjudication bodies under Cap 283 and Cap 284 concerning his claimed ownership of Land Parcel No. 10394 Athiru Demarcation were irregular, fraudulent and unconstitutional, certiorari to quash those decisions (committee, arbitration board, Land Adjudication Officer and Minister), a declaration of ownership of the suit land, mandamus compelling registration in his name, and general damages for breach of his right to property under Article 40. He claimed to have purchased the land in 1994 from Samwel Kanyi, while the 2nd interested party claimed it as his own, having been issued with the current registered title. The matter was heard by written submissions. The court framed one issue: whether the petition had merits and whether the court could declare the petitioner owner of the suit land. Applying the Anarita Karimi Njeru precision standard, the court found the petition lacked specificity on the constitutional provisions violated and how. The court held that the petitioner, having participated fully in adjudication up to the Minister, could not use a constitutional petition as a substitute for judicial review or an ordinary suit under sections 25 and 26(2)(b) of the Land Registration Act; the court's role over adjudication is supervisory only. The petition was dismissed with costs to the 2nd interested party.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the constitutional petition was the proper vehicle to challenge the adjudication decisions

Holding

It was not; the proper recourse was judicial review or an ordinary suit challenging title, and the petition was dismissed

Reasoning

The petitioner participated fully in the adjudication process up to the Minister. His grievance concerned the correctness of the process, which lies in judicial review concerned with process, not outcome. Exhausting statutory remedies does not license a petition bypassing prescribed procedures. Rights under section 25 Land Registration Act must be challenged under section 26(2)(b) in an ordinary suit with evidence and cross-examination.

p. 5
02

Whether the petition met the Anarita Karimi Njeru standard of precision

Holding

It did not; the petition failed to specify the constitutional provisions violated and the manner of violation

Reasoning

The petitioner merely asserted that the adjudication proceedings were irregular, illegal and ambiguous and that Article 40 was violated. He did not demonstrate how the violations occurred, considering the adjudication bodies had statutory mandate under Cap 283 and 284. Displeasure with an outcome is not evidence of illegality or irregularity.

p. 4
03

Whether the court can determine ownership of land within an adjudication area

Holding

No; ascertainment of rights and interests in land in an adjudication area is reserved to the statutory adjudication bodies, with the court's role supervisory only

Reasoning

Under Cap 283 and Cap 284 there is an elaborate, inclusive dispute resolution mechanism culminating in the Minister's final decision. Civil suits over land in an adjudication area are barred save with leave of the Land Adjudication Officer. The court may supervise the process and determine points of law but cannot usurp the adjudication bodies' functions.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A constitutional petitioner must set out with reasonable precision the provisions infringed and the manner of infringement (Anarita Karimi Njeru principle)
  • A constitutional petition should not be used as a substitute for normal prescribed procedures for challenging administrative action
  • Once an area is declared an adjudication area, ascertainment and determination of rights and interests in land is reserved to the officers and quasi-judicial bodies under the Act; the court's role is supervisory only
  • Registered title under section 25 of the Land Registration Act can only be challenged under section 26(2)(b) in an ordinary suit where the burden of proof is discharged through evidence
  • Exhausting remedies under Cap 284 does not by itself entitle a party to challenge the adjudication decisions by way of a petition

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The petition is dismissed with costs to the 2nd interested party

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • The Land Consolidation ActCap 283, section 26(3)
  • The Land Adjudication ActCap 284, section 29(1)
  • The Land Adjudication Actsection 26
  • The Land Adjudication Actsection 30
  • Land Registration Actsection 25
  • Land Registration Actsection 26(2)(b)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 40 and 64
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 rule 1

Cases cited (11)

  • Fredrick Mworia v District Land Adjudication Officer Tigania West/East & 3 others
    [2016] eKLR
  • Peter Odoyo Ogada & 9 others v Independent Electoral And Boundaries Commission of Kenya & 14 others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic
    [1979] eKLR
  • Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Municipal Council of Mombasa v Republic & another
    [2002] eKLR
  • Evans Chelagat Yatich v Baringo North Sub-County Alcoholic Drinks Committee & another
    [2019] eKLR
  • Moses Kuria Njuguna vs County Government of Kiambu
    (2018) eKLR
  • Alphonse Mwangemi Munga and 10 Others v Africa Safari Club
    (2008) eKLR
  • John Masiantet Saeni vs. Daniel Aramat Lolungiro & 3 Others
    Petition 6 of 2016 Kisii
  • Tobias Achola Osidi & 13 Others vs. Cyprianus Otieno Ogalo & 6 others
    (2013) eKLR
  • Anne Wawuda & 3 others vs Kenya Railways Corporation & another
    (2105) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (petition under the Bill of Rights, incl. Article 40); Land Adjudication Act Cap 284 and Land Consolidation Act Cap 283

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (16)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Stephen Kirimi M’rinturi v Land Adjudication and Settlements Officer – Igembe District & 3 Others; Peter Kumbu Kimunya & Another (Interested Parties) [2020] KEELC 2293 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Petition No. 11 of 2018 (Meru ELC) - as filed 24/09/2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2293/eng@2020-05-21

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