Republic v Tigania East District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer & another Ex parte Joseph Kubai Tarichia; Peter Mukondo (Interested Party) [2021] KEELC 2383 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court quashed a land adjudication officer's decision because he decided land objections without the Committee the law requires him to involve.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether failure to involve the Committee under Section 26 of the Land Consolidation Act vitiated the objection proceedings
Yes - the Adjudication Officer erred in determining the objections alone without the Committee, contrary to Section 26(1), rendering the process flawed
Section 26 of the Land Consolidation Act prescribes a four-part objection process, the second of which requires the Adjudication Officer to consider the objection together with the Committee appointed under Section 9 of the Act. The court found from the record that this requirement was not complied with, the Officer having considered and determined the objection on his own without the presence of the Committee. This made the decision-making process amenable to certiorari.
Whether the proceedings breached natural justice by denying the Applicant the chance to call witnesses and by using an allegedly biased interpreter
No - the record showed both parties were heard, each called a witness and cross-examined; the bias allegation was unsupported and not raised at the time
From the proceedings it was clear that both the Ex Parte Applicant and the deceased Interested Party had the opportunity to be heard, each brought a witness and cross-examined the opposing testimony. The allegation of a biased interpreter was not supported by any evidence of flawed interpretation, and the Applicant had not raised the issue during the objection proceedings, making the claim untenable.
Scope of certiorari - whether it should extend to all seven objections or only the two selectively challenged
Certiorari extended to the entire judgement over all seven objections because the joint proceedings were tainted by the same illegality
The judgement for all the objections was delivered consequent to joint proceedings determining all of them, and that process was found marred by illegality in relation to Sections 9 and 26 of the Land Consolidation Act. The court therefore declined to limit the quashing order to Objection Nos. 414 and 417 as selectively prayed by the Applicant, and instead quashed the entire judgement.
Legal principles established
#- The Adjudication Officer must consider an objection together with the Committee appointed under Section 9 of the Land Consolidation Act; deciding an objection alone under Section 26 renders the process flawed and amenable to certiorari
- Judicial review concerns process, not merits; the reviewing court cannot substitute its own decision for that of the decision maker
Court orders
#- 1.An order of certiorari to quash the entire judgement of the Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer, Tigania East District issued on 5th June 2018 relating to Objection Nos. 411, 412, 413, 414, 416, 417 & 1385 in reference to Parcel Nos. 7259, 5939, 5115, 1618, 5940, 750 & 2526, not merely Objection Nos. 414 and 417.
- 2.The matter remitted to the Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer, Tigania East District, for hearing and determination in accordance with the law.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 8 & 9 of the Law Reform Act (Cap 26) and Order 53 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Tigania East District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer & another Ex parte Joseph Kubai Tarichia; Peter Mukondo (Interested Party) [2021] KEELC 2383 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Judicial Review Application (Chamber Summons dated 24th July 2018; Notice of Motion dated 7th August 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/2383/eng@2021-07-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.