Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedJudicial Review Application (Notice of Motion dated 11th June, 2021)· [2024] KEELC 434 (KLR)

Kilonzo v Deputy County Commissioner Machakos County & 2 others; Ngumbi (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case Judicial Review Application E008 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 434 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court / High Court of Kenya at Machakos (Judicial Review)
5 February 2024
COChristine Ochieng
2,731 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Machakos court dismissed a bid to overturn a land appeal decision, confirming that courts review how decisions are made, not whether the outcome is right.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Ex parte Applicant moved the Court by Notice of Motion dated 11th June 2021, under Article 50 of the Constitution, Order 53 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, seeking certiorari to quash the Ruling of the Deputy County Commissioner, Machakos County delivered on 30th March 2021 on an appeal to the Minister under Section 29 of the Land Adjudication Act, and prohibition against its enforcement. The dispute concerned Nziuni Adjudication Section 117, claimed by the Applicant through Mwata Mwinza, against the family of Joshua Ndambuki, represented by the Interested Party, Joseph Ngumbi Ndambuki. The Applicant argued that the Deputy County Commissioner failed to conduct detailed research or consult family members and neighbours, and that due process and a fair trial were denied. The Respondents and the Interested Party countered that both parties were heard, that judicial review examines process rather than merits, and that the appeal was lawfully entertained under Section 29(1) of the Land Adjudication Act. The court framed a single issue: whether the Applicant was entitled to certiorari and prohibition. Applying the Wednesbury framework from Council for Civil Service Unions and the process-focused approach in Municipal Council of Mombasa, the court found that the Applicant and family representatives participated in the adjudication process and were accorded a hearing; his grievance was with the outcome, not the procedure. No violation of natural justice, unfairness or bias was demonstrated. Since judicial review does not permit scrutiny of the merits, the application was dismissed with costs to the Interested Party.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the impugned ruling of the Deputy County Commissioner was tainted by procedural impropriety so as to justify certiorari and prohibition

Holding

No - the Applicant and his family participated in the process and were accorded a hearing; he was aggrieved by the outcome, not the procedure

Reasoning

The court reviewed the proceedings before the Arbitration Board, the Adjudication Hearing and the Appeal to the Minister and found the Applicant and family representatives participated and were heard. The Applicant's grievance, per his Supporting Affidavit, targeted the decision itself rather than the process. Absent demonstrated procedural impropriety, unfairness or bias, judicial review relief could not issue, and the court could not sit as an appellate court over the merits of the decision.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision itself
  • Where a party was accorded a hearing and no rule of natural justice was breached, certiorari and prohibition will not issue

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion Application dated 11th June, 2021 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs to the Interested Party

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 47; Article 50
  • Fair Administrative Action ActSections 4, 7, 7(2), 8 and 9
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 53 Rule 1(2)
  • Land Adjudication ActSection 29(1) and Section 29

Cases cited (9)

  • Council for Civil Service Unions vs. Minister for Civil Service
    [1985] A.C. 374
  • Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration)
    2 S.C.R. 817
  • Municipal Council of Mombasa vs. Republic & Umoja Consultants Ltd
    Civil Appeal No. 185 of 2001
  • Republic v National Transport & Safety Authority & 100 Others Ex parte James Maina Mugo
    (2015) eKLR
  • Kenya National Examination Council v Republic, Ex parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 Others
    (1997) eKLR
  • OJSC Power Machines Ltd, Trans Century Ltd & Civicon Ltd (Consortium) v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board Kenya & 2 others
    NRB CA 28 of 2016 (2017) eKLR
  • Accounting Officer Kenya Ports Authority (Ex parte) v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 3 Others (Interested Parties)
    (2019) eKLR
  • Republic v Deputy County Commissioner, Kitui West Sub County; Kilonzi Mukinya Muvevi & Another (Interested Parties) Ex parte Justus Mwendwa Liku
    (2021) eKLR
  • Republic & 3 others v Special District Commissioner, Machakos, Joshua Nthenge & Another
    (2020) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 50 of the Constitution, Order 53 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Fair Administrative Action Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kilonzo v Deputy County Commissioner Machakos County & 2 others; Ngumbi (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case Judicial Review Application E008 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 434 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Judicial Review Application (Notice of Motion dated 11th June, 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/434/eng@2024-02-05

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.