Church Commissioners for Kenya (Suing for and on behalf of ACK St Marks Church, Chang’ombe as the Trustee of the properties of the Anglican Church of Kenya) v Adjudication Officer, Kilifi & 10 others (Environment & Land Petition 08 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 1109 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court cancelled four Kilifi land titles, ruling the state cannot adjudicate privately owned land and must respond to lease renewal applications.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the petition was time-barred under Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act
The objection failed. The petition is neither a claim for recovery of land nor a tort; Section 7 LAA is inapplicable, and for constitutional claims limitation applies only where delay is inordinate and unexplained. Time, if at all, ran from the issuance of the last titles in 2013, well within 12 years of the petition.
The court held the Constitution sets no timelines for rights-violation claims and that statutes must yield to the supreme law; a limitation objection is a technicality disfavoured under Article 159(2)(d). Assessing the facts wholistically, the adjudication process straddled decades and ended definitively with title issuance on 8/8/2013, only about five years before the petition was lodged, so any limitation period would run from that date.
Whether the petitioner applied for extension of the lease
Yes. The letter dated 13th June 1995 was good evidence of the application; lack of a stamp or acknowledgment of receipt did not disprove delivery, and absence of follow-up does not dissolve the Commissioner's/NLC's duty to respond.
The court found the respondents had no material beyond the missing acknowledgment to show the letter was never delivered, and that denying justice on such a speculative basis would offend Article 50(1) and Article 159(2)(d). It also held it onerous to require the petitioner to prove undocumented physical follow-ups by former personnel over the years.
Whether the adjudication of privately registered land and issuance of titles to third parties violated the petitioner's rights
Yes. The adjudication of titled private land was illegal ab initio and null and void; the process culminating in 2013 titles deprived the petitioner of property without compulsory acquisition or compensation, and without a hearing, violating Article 40(3)(a) and (b), Article 47 and the former Constitution's Section 75.
Changómbe Adjudication Section was established in 1977, 25 years before the lease expired, over land that was neither government nor trust land. The 1st and 2nd respondents lacked jurisdiction; the failure to notify the indenture area was negligence; the AG's affidavit amounted to an admission of impropriety; and per Macfoy a void act is incurably bad, so the absence of objections under Section 26 LAA did not cure the illegality.
Whether the failure to acknowledge, respond to and determine the 1995 extension application breached legitimate expectation
Yes. A legitimate expectation of a response arose automatically upon dispatch of the letter; failure to acknowledge underlay the failures to respond, consider and communicate, and that violation continued to 2013 and beyond, while the application remains pending and must now be determined under the current legal regime.
Distinguishing expectation of a response from expectation of renewal, the court held the former required no promissory conduct. Even though pre-emptive rights did not exist under the old regime, equity required the Commissioner to acknowledge, consider and communicate a decision. Since the application remains pending, Article 47 and Section 13(1) and 1A of the Land Act now govern it, and the retrospective objection does not arise.
Whether fraud was established against the respondents
The court did not rest its decision on fraud; it found the adjudication and title issuance unlawful as a jurisdictionally void process rather than on proof of fraud to the higher standard.
The respondents urged that fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, but the court concluded the matter on the illegality of adjudicating registered private land, the lack of compulsory acquisition, and the admission in the 1st-5th respondents' affidavit, without making an express finding of fraud against the 6th-11th respondents.
Legal principles established
#- There is no limitation period prescribed by statute for constitutional petitions; limitation objections are technicalities and only inordinate, unexplained delay that renders a just trial impossible can defeat such a claim
- A legitimate expectation of a response arises automatically upon dispatch of a written application to a public officer, distinct from a legitimate expectation of renewal
- Government adjudication over privately registered land is a nullity; a void act needs no order to set it aside
- Where a lease-extension application remains pending, the current legal regime (Section 13(1) and 1A of the Land Act and Article 47) applies to its determination
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the 4th respondent breached the petitioner's legitimate expectation when he failed, refused or neglected to acknowledge, respond to or consider the petitioner's application dated 13/6/1995 for extension of its lease in respect of land held under indenture Deed No 361A of 1903
- 2.A declaration that the petitioner's rights under Article 40(3)(a), Article 40(3)(b)(1), Article 47(1) and (2), Article 43(1)(f) of the Constitution, Section 13(1) and 1A of the Land Act 2012 have been violated by the actions and omissions of the respondents acting singly or jointly
- 3.A declaration that the inclusion of the petitioner's land held under indenture Deed No 361A of 1903 in the Changómbe Land Adjudication Section by the 1st and 2nd Respondents is illegal null and void
- 4.An order of mandatory injunction compelling the 6th to 11th Respondents to vacate and deliver vacant possession of L.R Nos. Kilifi/Changómbe/27, 87, 98 and 99 to the Petitioner
- 5.An order of permanent injunction restraining the Respondents from occupying, cultivating, constructing, fencing, selling, leasing, charging or otherwise interfering with the Petitioner's quiet possession and enjoyment of the suit property
- 6.Cancellation of all titles registered as L.R Nos. Kilifi/Changómbe/27, 87, 98 and 99
- 7.An order of mandatory injunction compelling the 5th respondent to consider and make a determination on the petitioner's application for renewal of lease dated 13th June 1995
- 8.The 6th-11th respondents shall jointly and severally bear the costs of the petition
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional jurisdiction under the Constitution of Kenya 2010 (Articles 27, 40, 47 and related Bill of Rights provisions) before the Environment and Land Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Church Commissioners for Kenya (Suing for and on behalf of ACK St Marks Church, Chang’ombe as the Trustee of the properties of the Anglican Church of Kenya) v Adjudication Officer, Kilifi & 10 others (Environment & Land Petition 08 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 1109 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Petition filed 23rd March 2018, ELC Malindi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1109/eng@2025-03-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.