Republic v County Government of Kirinyaga & 2 others; Mwangi (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review E002 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 5065 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court quashed a Kirinyaga County land dispute decision because the committee held a site visit without notifying or involving one of the parties.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the Dispute Resolution Committee's decision-making process
The Committee's conduct of a site visit without notice to, or participation of, the ex-parte Applicant breached natural justice and Article 47(1) and Section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, rendering the decision liable to certiorari
The Committee's minute did not show when the site visit occurred or whether parties were present or requested it. The Applicant's unrefuted assertion that he was neither informed nor present established a breach. Since the visit significantly influenced the decision on whether plots E33 and A60 were separate, the Applicant, who stood to be affected, was entitled to notice, participation and an opportunity to seek clarifications.
Scope of judicial review over administrative decisions
The court confines itself to the decision-making process, not the merits, exercising restraint over delegated discretion
Relying on Municipal Council of Mombasa v Republic & Umoja Consultants Ltd, the court noted it should not act as a court of appeal over the decider or examine the sufficiency of evidence. Judicial review nonetheless serves to guard against misuse of power by public authorities and to uphold the rule of law.
Legal principles established
#- Where a tribunal or decision-making body conducts a site visit (locus in quo visit) that influences its decision, the affected parties must be given notice of and permitted to participate in the visit; failure to do so renders the process procedurally unfair and the resulting decision liable to be quashed
- On judicial review the court does not sit as a court of appeal over the merits of a decision but examines the fairness of the decision-making process
Court orders
#- 1.An order of certiorari issued in terms of prayer (1) of the Notice of Motion, removing into the High Court and quashing the report, findings, remarks, resolution and/or decision of the Dispute Resolution Committee of the County Government of Kirinyaga made on 13th November 2019 vide minute number L/H/UD/32/2020
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court/ELC under Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v County Government of Kirinyaga & 2 others; Mwangi (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review E002 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 5065 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Judicial Review E071 of 2022 (Ex-parte Notice of Motion dated 4th October 2022; substantive Motion dated 17th November 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5065/eng@2024-07-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.