Sorcha v Muhidin & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 009 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 2991 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Marsabit man won back land taken from him without notice or hearing, because authorities failed to follow fair legal procedures.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the taking away of the petitioner's land (Plot No.747, subdivided into Plots 126 and 127) was lawful
The actions were irregular, unlawful and null and void ab initio; the petitioner was not informed or heard before 2 acres were curved off and the land re-allocated to the 1st respondent.
The court considered the 1972 allocation letter, receipts for rates, the DCIO letter investigating making of a false document under section 345 of the Penal Code, and the District Land Adjudication Officer's ground visit report confirming the petitioner's family in occupation. The title was issued to the 1st respondent on 30/10/2013 despite a police request to hold issuance. The 1998 committee proceedings were held not to be objection proceedings under section 26 of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap 284, as there was no published notice, no confirmation of the 60-day window, and the petitioner's rights were not explained.
Whether the purported 1998 Land Adjudication Committee proceedings under Section 26 of Cap 284 were valid
They were quashed; they were not the objection proceedings envisaged under section 26 of the Act.
The court noted the proceedings did not disclose the coram, not even the presiding Land Adjudication Officer; there was no evidence of publication of the notice of completion of the adjudication register; no disclosure whether the complaint was within the statutory 60 days; and the petitioner's rights under section 26 were not explained. The order disclosed the 1st respondent's name whose identity had remained hidden throughout the proceedings, supporting the allegation of fraud.
Whether the petitioner's rights under Articles 40 and 47 of the Constitution (property and fair administrative action) were violated
The petitioner's rights to own property and to fair administrative action were violated; no written reasons were given for the deprivation.
The petitioner relied on Article 40 (protection of property, including interests and not merely titles) and Article 47 (right to expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair administrative action, with written reasons). No reasons, written or oral, were given to the petitioner, and he was neither informed nor heard before the deprivation, breaching natural justice and fair administrative action.
Legal principles established
#- Extreme indolence by parties in prosecuting petitions must attract consequences; a petitioner and respondents must be accorded equal treatment and litigation must come to an end.
- Where respondents fail to file submissions, the court may determine the petition on the petitioner's uncontroverted pleadings and submissions, the petition having been proved on a balance of probabilities.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the actions by the respondents to take away the Petitioner's Plot No.747, Marsabit, were irregular, unlawful and null and void ab initio
- 2.An order directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to revert Plot No.127 back to the Petitioner
- 3.An order quashing the proceedings and decision of the purported committee on land which allegedly took place in 1998
- 4.A mandatory permanent injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd respondents, their agents and assignees from entering, encroaching upon or in any way interfering with the quiet possession by the Petitioner of Plot No.127, Marsabit Town
- 5.Costs awarded to the petitioner
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 23(1) and 23(3) of the Constitution read with Section 13(3) of the Environment and Land Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sorcha v Muhidin & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 009 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 2991 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment (Petition filed 22nd September 2015, originally at Meru, transferred to Isiolo). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2991/eng@2022-06-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.