Gatma Holdings Limited & another v National Land Commission & 2 others [2020] KEELC 3898 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court upheld the National Land Commission's power to revoke titles over public land where owners cannot prove their land was lawfully acquired.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the National Land Commission to review the grant
The 1st respondent had jurisdiction to review the grant as the suit property was originally public land, and Section 14 of the National Land Commission Act mandates the review of grants and dispositions of public land on its own motion or upon complaint.
The court found that the property was originally public land converted to private land, and the Commission is mandated to probe how private individuals acquired public land. The Commission is an independent commission established under Article 67(1) of the Constitution, operationalized by the National Land Commission Act, with fundamental functions of managing public land on behalf of the national and county governments.
Whether the petitioners' constitutional rights were violated
No violation of Articles 47 and 50 was established; the Commission accorded parties who appeared an opportunity to present their case and complied with fair administrative action requirements.
The court found that the 1st respondent published notices inviting representations, and all parties who appeared were accorded a fair opportunity to present their case. The petitioners, if interested, were under an obligation to appear before the Commission and participate in the proceedings. Absence of participation meant no violation could be claimed.
Liability of the 2nd respondent (County Government of Nairobi)
The 2nd respondent made no decision capable of being challenged; its executive committee resolution was merely a complaint to the Commission.
Applying the definition of 'decision' under Section 2 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, the court held that the County Executive Committee meeting resolution was not an administrative or quasi-judicial decision. The County Government was merely a complainant to an administrative body, and the County Governments Act does not contemplate the presence of the petitioners at the County Executive Committee meeting.
Validity of the petitioners' title and the bona fide purchaser claim
It was unclear how the original allottee (Kenya Developers Limited) acquired the property and whether the deceased did due diligence; Article 40 protection does not extend to unlawfully acquired property.
The court noted the chain of allotment and sale was not demonstrated to be lawful and procedural. Citing Chemey Investment Ltd, the court adopted the principle that only a careless or fraudulent investor would purchase public land with alacrity, and a bona fide purchaser is expected to inspect the property and be alert to indicia of public use.
Legal principles established
#- Protection of property rights under Article 40 does not extend to property found to have been unlawfully acquired
- Section 14 of the National Land Commission Act empowers the Commission to review grants and dispositions of public land on its own motion or upon complaint
- A bona fide purchaser must exercise due diligence when purchasing land, including inspecting the property
Court orders
#- 1.The petition was dismissed with costs to the 1st and 2nd respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 40, 47 and 50 of the Constitution; review of grants under Section 14 of the National Land Commission Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gatma Holdings Limited & another v National Land Commission & 2 others [2020] KEELC 3898 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Petition dated 26th March 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/3898/eng@2020-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.