Accra Trade Centre Limited v National Land Commission & another; Guled Housing Company Limited (Interested Party) [2020] KEELC 2824 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court cancelled the National Land Commission's decision reversing a land ruling because it changed its mind without giving the affected party a hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the NLC's review of its decision of 20/12/2016 violated the applicant's right to fair administrative action and fair hearing
Yes. The applicant was the complainant in the review exercise and was entitled to notice and a hearing before the first decision was changed; the NLC disregarded the constitutional and statutory framework, rendering the impugned decision null and void.
The first decision was a constitutional and statutory exercise governed by Article 67(2)(e) and Section 14 of the NLC Act, which require notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court found no evidence of invitation, public notice, minutes or fresh public hearing before the 8/3/2018 decision. The requirements of Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act were thus blatantly disregarded, making the reversal illegal, null and void.
Whether the applicant was entitled to certiorari and prohibition
Certiorari was granted in terms of prayer 1; prohibition against the 2nd respondent acting on the quashed decision followed as a consequential relief.
Having found a violation of Articles 47 and 50 and the relevant statutes, the court granted certiorari quashing the 11/4/2018 decision. Prohibition was framed as a consequential relief necessary to avoid confusion or disorder, and having granted certiorari, the court granted it too.
Whether the applicant was entitled to mandamus against the 2nd respondent
No. No demand was made on the 2nd respondent to perform a specific legal duty and no refusal established.
The NLC made findings and recommendations, but there was no evidence the 2nd respondent was served with them or was asked to perform a specific duty and declined. It was also not established whether the recommendations were binding on the 2nd respondent so as to create a legal duty, and the court was not addressed on that issue.
Legal principles established
#- A decision-making body that rendered a determination through a constitutional and statutory process must accord parties notice and a hearing before changing that decision; a reversal made without notice or hearing violates Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution and is null and void.
- An order of prohibition restraining a decision is a consequential relief that follows where certiorari quashing that decision is granted.
- Mandamus issues only to compel performance of a public legal duty that has been refused upon demand.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of certiorari quashing the decision of the 1st respondent made during its review committee meeting on the 8th March 2018 vide minute 1/5/3/2018-iv reversing its earlier determination of review of grants and disposition of public land, LR 209/6497 and LR 209/13769/1 contained in a letter dated 11th April 2018
- 2.An order of prohibition directed against the 2nd respondent prohibiting them from acting on the decision by the 1st respondent contained in a letter dated 11th April 2018
- 3.The applicant is awarded costs of the suit, to be borne by the 1st respondent
- 4.The other parties to the suit shall bear their respective costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review under Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act; Article 67(2)(e) and Section 14 of the National Land Commission Act frameworks
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Accra Trade Centre Limited v National Land Commission & another; Guled Housing Company Limited (Interested Party) [2020] KEELC 2824 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Notice of Motion dated 13/7/2018 (Judicial Review). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2824/eng@2020-05-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.