In re Daniel Makau Munguti & 2 others [2022] KEELC 711 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court dismissed a bid to overturn a land appeal decision, confirming judicial review challenges a process, not the outcome itself.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Deputy County Commissioner under the delegation
The Minister validly delegated powers to hear appeals to Deputy Commissioners via Gazette Notice No. 6854, so the Deputy County Commissioner had jurisdiction
The respondents and interested parties produced Gazette Notice No. 6854 of 3rd October 2014 delegating the Minister's appellate powers under Section 29 of the Land Adjudication Act to Deputy Commissioners of all sub-counties except those in Nairobi. The court found no evidence that the hearing officer lacked authority.
Alleged delegation to an unauthorised person
Ground dismissed for want of proof; no evidence was placed before the court that someone other than the Deputy County Commissioner heard the appeal
The applicants alleged a junior officer in the office of the Assistant County Commissioner heard the appeal, but produced no evidence. The interested parties showed the proceedings were signed and dated by Florence Obunga, the Deputy County Commissioner. An unproved allegation cannot sustain a judicial review ground.
Alleged undated and unsigned decision
Ground lacks merit; the court's perusal showed the decision was dated and signed
The court independently examined the ministerial appeal proceedings and found the decision dated 20th January 2020 and signed, contradicting the applicants' assertion. The applicants' own allegation was internally contradictory since they faulted the same decision they claimed was unsigned.
Whether judicial review is a proper vehicle for the substantive land complaints
Grounds 5 and 6 were not tenable in judicial review as they attacked the merits rather than the integrity of the process
The applicants' complaints about the subdivision, breach of the 1986 court order and fairness required the court to conduct a merit review, effectively sitting as an appellate court over the Deputy County Commissioner. The proper remedy, having been granted a right of appeal to the High Court within 60 days which they did not pursue, was an appeal.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review concerns the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision
- Judicial review is not an appeal and the court will not adopt the forbidden appellate approach
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the notice of motion seeking certiorari and prohibition
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents and the interested parties
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court under the Fair Administrative Action Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules (impugned ministerial appeal under Section 29 of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap 284)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "In re Daniel Makau Munguti & 2 others [2022] KEELC 711 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Judicial Review (Notice of Motion dated 17th July 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/711/eng@2022-03-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.