Republic v Director Land Adjudication & 4 others; Munoru (Exparte Applicant); Kang'Entu & 4 others (Interested Parties)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a landowner's challenge because he skipped the dispute process the law requires before going to court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Exhaustion of statutory dispute-resolution mechanisms under the Land Adjudication Act
The applicant failed to exhaust the statutory mechanisms (Sections 26 and 29 of Cap 284) and showed no exceptional circumstances excusing him
The court applied the exhaustion doctrine as articulated in Muthinja Kabiru and Mutanga Tea, and Section 9(2) of the Fair Administrative Actions Act. Objection proceedings had been determined in 2005 with the applicant's participation, and he never appealed. Judicial review was therefore premature and an attempt to escape statutory limitation.
Efficacy of mandamus and prohibition where no quashing order is sought
The two prerogative orders could serve no useful purpose because the underlying decisions creating the new parcels were not quashed
The court reasoned that mandamus and prohibition are remedies tied to the correction of the decision-making process; without quashing the decisions creating the ten parcels, granting the orders would be futile. The applicant also failed to demonstrate unlawfulness, unreasonableness or impropriety by the respondents.
Evidential burden on the applicant in judicial review
The applicant failed to substantiate his allegations of collusion and ultra vires conduct with tangible evidence
The verifying affidavit's annexures were unauthenticated and of unknown makers; no adjudication records, publication notices or registration records were produced; the inordinate delay from 2005 to 2018 was unexplained. Submissions could not substitute for evidence.
Legal principles established
#- Where a statute prescribes an alternative procedure for resolving complaints, that procedure must be followed before resorting to court
- Written submissions cannot amount to evidence; affidavits are evidence on oath
- Not every infraction in the adjudication process attracts court redress where internal mechanisms remain available
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated August 14, 2018 is dismissed
- 2.Costs to the respondents and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th interested parties
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under the Land Adjudication Act, Land Registration Act and Fair Administrative Actions Act (Section 9)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Director Land Adjudication & 4 others; Munoru (Exparte Applicant); Kang'Entu & 4 others (Interested Parties)", Case Analysis (2022). Judicial Review Application 12 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/15361/eng@2022-12-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.