Republic v Narok County Government & 2 others Ex Parte Mara Ngenche Safari Camp [2022] KEELC 2004 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court stopped Narok County from demolishing a Mara safari camp because the business was never given a fair hearing before the removal decision.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the ex parte applicant was accorded procedural fairness
The respondents failed to accord the applicant a hearing during the fact-finding exercise; the resultant actions were unlawful, irrational, unreasonable and lacked procedural fairness
The court noted that the 1st respondent undertook a fact-finding exercise after a widely circulated video of wildebeests being diverted at the camp. Despite this exercise and the threatened demolition, the applicant was never summoned or heard. Natural justice precludes condemning a party unheard, and Section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act requires a fair hearing for persons likely to be adversely affected by a decision. The absence of a hearing rendered the process flawed.
Whether blanket injunctive orders can issue in judicial review
Only prayers 1 and 4 (prohibition and certiorari) were grantable; prayers 2, 3 and 5 would require the court to delve into the merits, which is beyond judicial review
The court reiterated that judicial review examines the decision-making process, not the merits. Mandamus to enforce a lease and orders touching on social media communications would involve merits adjudication outside the supervisory jurisdiction. Hence only the prohibitory order against demolition and the certiorari quashing the 8th and 9th September 2020 decisions were granted.
Legal principles established
#- A party likely to be adversely affected by an administrative decision must be accorded a hearing; failure to hear the affected party during a fact-finding exercise renders the resultant actions unlawful, irrational, unreasonable and procedurally unfair
- Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision
Court orders
#- 1.An order of prohibition directed to the 1st and 2nd respondents, their officers and any other authority acting on their instructions, prohibiting them from demolishing, removing and/or interfering with the quiet possession of the ex parte applicant
- 2.An order of certiorari to quash the discussions, decisions, directives and/or orders of 8th and 9th September, 2020 of the 1st and 2nd respondents to remove and/or demolish the ex parte applicant
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 165(6) & (7) of the Constitution of Kenya; Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act (Cap 26)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Narok County Government & 2 others Ex Parte Mara Ngenche Safari Camp [2022] KEELC 2004 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). ELC Judicial Review No. 7 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2004/eng@2022-01-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.