Andrew Karanja Muigai & 8 Others v Registrar of Lands Naivasha & National Land Commission
The bottom line
#The High Court-style land court confirmed the National Land Commission cannot revoke Kenyan land titles after its five-year legal deadline expired.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the National Land Commission had jurisdiction to revoke the Petitioners' titles
No. The Commission's determination dated 21st January 2019 was made after the expiry of its five-year mandate under Section 14(1) of the National Land Commission Act, and no publication of the revocation was effected as required by Regulation 28(3) of the Land Commission (Review of Grants and Dispositions of Public Land) Regulations, 2017.
The National Land Commission Act commenced on 2nd May 2012, so all reviews under Section 14(1) were to be completed by 2nd May 2017. The Commission's determination was made on 21st January 2019, outside that window. The evidential burden shifted to the Commission to show it completed the review in time, but it did not participate despite service. Following Likizo Limited v Nasib Kashuru Limited, a determination outside the five-year period without parliamentary extension is unlawful, ultra vires and null and void. There was also no Gazette, newspaper or on-parcel publication of the revocation.
Whether the Petitioners were granted a fair hearing during the review process
The court declined to determine this issue, holding that once the Commission's lack of jurisdiction was established, its recommendations were null and void ab initio and addressing the fair-hearing question would lend legitimacy to the process.
Relying on the Court of Appeal's reasoning in Likizo Limited v Nasib Kashuru Limited, once the Commission's recommendation was found to be time-barred and therefore without jurisdiction, its recommendations were null and void ab initio. Addressing whether the Petitioners received a fair hearing would, as the Court of Appeal warned, 'cloth the process with legitimacy'. The issue was therefore rendered unnecessary for determination.
Burden of proof in an undefended constitutional petition
The Petitioners still bore the burden of proving their case to the requisite standard notwithstanding the 2nd Respondent's non-participation.
Citing Karugi & another v Kabiya and 3 others, the court held that even in an undefended petition the burden rests on the petitioners to demonstrate entitlement to the orders sought. The Petitioners discharged this burden by annexing certificates of official search confirming registration, and by showing the revocation occurred outside the Commission's statutory mandate. The court found the petitioners had set out with reasonable precision, per Anarita Karimi Njeru, the constitutional provisions infringed and the manner of infringement.
Legal principles established
#- A National Land Commission review of grants under Section 14(1) of the National Land Commission Act must be completed within five years of the Act's commencement (by 2nd May 2017); any determination made after that period, without a parliamentary extension, is unlawful, ultra vires and null and void for want of jurisdiction
- Even where a claim is undefended, the burden remains on the petitioner to prove their entitlement to the orders sought
Court orders
#- 1.The Petitioners are reverted back to the position they were before the determination by the 2nd Respondent
- 2.An order of injunction prohibiting the 2nd Respondent, its servants, agents or authorized persons from giving effect to or implementing the determination dated 21st January 2019 by the Vice Chairperson and Head of Review of Grants and Dispositions of the National Land Commission in respect of Naivasha/Maraigushu Block 8/217, 225, 226, 449, 450, 451, 453, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 530, 531, 532 and 533
- 3.Costs to the Petitioners
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 40, 47, 50(1) and 67 of the Constitution; Sections 25, 26(1) of the Land Registration Act and Section 14(1) of the National Land Commission Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Andrew Karanja Muigai & 8 Others v Registrar of Lands Naivasha & National Land Commission", Case Analysis (2025). Naivasha ELC Petition No. 7 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/82/eng@2025-01-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.