Republic v Deputy County Commissioner Lower Yatta Sub-County & another; Munyao (Exparte); Muinde & another (Interested Parties) (Judicial Review 17 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 2722 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court quashed a land appeal decision because the decision-maker gave no reasons, ordering the appeal to be heard afresh.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st Respondent gave reasons for his decision in Minister's Appeal No. 98 of 2001
The one-line decision containing no reasons did not satisfy Article 47(2) of the Constitution and Section 23 of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
The decision consisted of a two-line statement upholding the objection decision. Reasons are a fundamental attribute of common law adjudication, enabling parties to see how their arguments were dealt with, enabling review, and furthering accountability. The court found the decision contained no reasons at all, and the applicant was left to guess which grounds of appeal succeeded or failed.
Whether the decision was irrational, unreasonable and tainted with illegality and procedural impropriety
Failure to give reasons rendered the decision irrational (unreasoned), unreasonable and illegal, as it breached Article 47(2) and Section 23 of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
Relying on Wednesbury and De Smith, the court held a decision is irrational if it is unreasoned and lacking ostensible logic or comprehensible justification. The decision-maker did not show that he considered the matters he was bound to consider, namely the grounds of appeal and the lower adjudication record, and the decision denied the applicant a fundamental right while his property right under Article 40 was adversely affected.
The scope of judicial review vis-à-vis the merits of the Minister's decision
The court did not review the merits; it found the decision-making process flawed for want of reasons and breach of natural justice.
Judicial review concerns the decision-making process, not the merits. However, failure to give reasons casts doubt on the fairness of the decision-maker and breaches the rules of natural justice; where natural justice is violated, the decision must be declared no decision. The remedy was certiorari and remission for a fresh hearing in accordance with the law.
Legal principles established
#- A quasi-judicial decision-maker whose action adversely affects a person's rights must give written reasons; failure to give reasons renders the decision irrational, unreasonable and tainted with illegality and procedural impropriety.
- The right to be given reasons for administrative action is guaranteed under Article 47(2) of the Constitution and Section 23 of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
- Common law principles on judicial review (illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, proportionality) continue to apply in Kenya pursuant to Section 12 of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of Certiorari granted to remove into the Court the proceedings and the decision of the 1st Respondent dated 28.4.2020 and the same quashed for being null and void
- 2.Minister's Appeal Case No. 98 of 2001 (Ndunguni Adjudication Section, Parcel No. 2366) referred back with directions that the same be heard and determined in accordance with the law
- 3.Costs of the suit awarded to the Ex parte Applicant by the 1st Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 165(6) as read with Article 165(7) of the Constitution of Kenya (supervisory jurisdiction) and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Deputy County Commissioner Lower Yatta Sub-County & another; Munyao (Exparte); Muinde & another (Interested Parties) (Judicial Review 17 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 2722 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Judicial Review (Notice of Motion dated 2nd November 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2722/eng@2022-06-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.