Republic v National Land Commission; Ex-parte Applicant :Hannah Wanjiru Mburu; Simon Muhu Mararo & 3 others (Interested Parties) [2021] KEELC 4662 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court let a public road acquisition stand but froze the compensation money until an ownership dispute over the land is resolved.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether certiorari should issue to quash the Gazette Notice and the entire compulsory acquisition
Certiorari refused; the acquisition was a lawful exercise of eminent domain under the Constitution and Part VIII of the Land Act for a public road
The court found the acquisition was undertaken on behalf of the Government's Department of Roads for construction of a public road. Other than the respondent's failure to respond to her letter, the applicant showed no basis for halting the whole exercise. Section 115 of the Land Act already contemplates this scenario by preserving compensation money while allowing acquisition to proceed, making quashing disproportionate and unmerited.
Whether prohibition should issue in respect of compensation
A limited prohibition order was granted preserving the compensation money under Section 115 of the Land Act pending the outcome of Environment and Land Case No 3 of 2010
The respondent had paid the compensation into a special account under Section 115 of the Land Act and undertook not to release it pending the ownership dispute. The court found common ground that a dispute over four acres existed and no evidence that any sub-division was complete. Given the respondent's failure to give an irrevocable assurance when first notified, a prohibitory order preserving the money was warranted.
Legal principles established
#- Where a dispute over ownership of compulsorily acquired land is pending in court, the compensation money may be preserved in terms of Section 115 of the Land Act pending determination of that dispute, while the acquisition itself proceeds
Court orders
#- 1.An order of prohibition prohibiting the National Land Commission from releasing compensation money relating to the portion compulsorily acquired out of Land Parcel Number Ndeiya/Ndeiya/506 pending the disposal of Nairobi Environment and Land Case Number 3 of 2010
- 2.The ex-parte applicant's plea for an order of certiorari and for a blanket order of prohibition is rejected for lack of merit
- 3.There shall be no award of costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court under the Constitution and the Land Act, Part VIII (compulsory acquisition/eminent domain); Section 115 of the Land Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v National Land Commission; Ex-parte Applicant :Hannah Wanjiru Mburu; Simon Muhu Mararo & 3 others (Interested Parties) [2021] KEELC 4662 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Judicial Review Motion dated 1/12/2014 (leave granted 25/11/2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/4662/eng@2021-01-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.