Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedJudicial Review No. ... of 2017 (Meru)· [2020] KEELC 3612 (KLR)

Republic v District Land Adjudication and Settlment Officer (DLASO) Karama Adjudication Section & another Exparte Timothy Murungi; Joshua Mururu M’Mwenda (Interested Party) [2020] KEELC 3612 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
10 February 2020
ECE.C. CheronoLML.N. Mbugua
1,365 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Ex-parte Applicant sought an order of certiorari, by way of leave under Order 53 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act, to quash the proceedings and decision dated 22/11/2016 of the Land Adjudication Officer in Objection Proceedings No. 255 over land parcels No. 5136 and 11906 in Karama Adjudication Section, Tigania East. Leave was granted by the duty judge to operate as a stay, and the substantive Notice of Motion followed. The Respondents filed a notice of appointment only; the Interested Party did not respond. The court framed four issues. First, per Section 9(1) and (2) of the Land Consolidation Act, Cap 283, an adjudication officer must appoint a committee of not less than twenty-five members to assist in adjudication. On perusal of the objection proceedings, the officer did not appoint a committee, and following the Court of Appeal's decision in Peter Kimandiu v Land Adjudication Officer Tigania West District, his decision-making process was contrary to law and amenable to the corrective jurisdiction of the High Court. Second, on natural justice, the court found the Applicant was represented by his brother Julius Mungania, who fully participated and was not shown to have been compelled; there was no application for adjournment, so that ground failed. Holding that the statutory ground alone sufficed, the court allowed the motion: certiorari issued quashing the decision of 22/11/2016, the objection was remitted for hearing afresh with the aid of a committee, and each party was ordered to bear her own costs because the officer's failure could not be attributed to any party.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the objection proceedings were conducted without a committee contrary to Sections 9(1) and (2) of the Land Consolidation Act, Cap 283

Holding

Yes - the record showed no committee was appointed or involved, rendering the decision-making process contrary to law

Reasoning

Section 9(1) and (2) of the Land Consolidation Act requires the adjudication officer to appoint a committee of not less than twenty-five members to assist in the adjudication process. Perusal of the objection proceedings showed the adjudication officer did not appoint specific persons to form a committee. The court could rightly assume he did not involve the committee in his decision. Following the Court of Appeal's decision in Peter Kimandiu, a decision made by the LAO alone is contrary to law and amenable to certiorari.

p. 2
02

Whether the objection was heard in violation of the rules of natural justice

Holding

No - the Applicant was represented by his brother who fully participated, so no natural justice breach was established

Reasoning

The Applicant sent his brother Julius Mungania to the adjudication officer's offices. The record showed no application for adjournment by the brother, and he fully participated in giving evidence and cross-examining witnesses. There was no evidence he was compelled to proceed. Consequently the natural justice ground failed.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An adjudication officer must determine objections in conjunction with the appointed committee; a decision made by the officer alone is contrary to law and amenable to the corrective power of the High Court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of certiorari issued calling to the High Court and quashing the proceedings and decision dated 22/11/2016 made by the 1st Respondent in Objection No. 255 over land parcels No. 5136 and 11906 within Karama Adjudication Section, Tigania East Adjudication Area
  2. 2.Objection No. 255 of 2016 remitted back for hearing afresh as provided for under the law with the aid of a committee
  3. 3.Each party shall bear her own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 53 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 53 Rule 3
  • Law Reform ActSections 8 & 9
  • Land Consolidation Act, Cap 283 Laws of KenyaSection 9(1) and (2)
  • Constitution of Kenyageneral reference to natural justice

Cases cited (1)

  • PETER KIMANDIU VS LAND ADJUDICATION OFFICER TIGANIA WEST DISTRICT & 4 OTHERS
    (2016) e K.L.R
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 53 Rules 1 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules as read with Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act (judicial review - certiorari)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v District Land Adjudication and Settlment Officer (DLASO) Karama Adjudication Section & another Exparte Timothy Murungi; Joshua Mururu M’Mwenda (Interested Party) [2020] KEELC 3612 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Judicial Review No. ... of 2017 (Meru). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/3612/eng@2020-02-10

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