Sein v County Public Land Registrar & another; Sein (Interested Party) (Judicial Review E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1447 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court quashed Kajiado officials' decision to take away a landowner's plot because the process was unfair, undocumented, and gave no reasons.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the decision of 2nd February 2024 violated fair administrative action and natural justice and should be quashed
Yes. The hearing was conducted by one committee but the decision was rendered by another, no proceedings or minutes were supplied, and the Applicant was denied reasons and information, breaching Articles 35, 40 and 47 and the rules of natural justice.
The court noted there were no proceedings or minutes of the hearing, so it could not verify who testified or what evidence was produced. The Applicant had asked for certified proceedings but they were never supplied, curtailing the right to information under Article 35. Article 47 entitled the Applicant to written reasons where fundamental freedoms were adversely affected. Without such records the court could not be satisfied that a fair hearing under Article 50 was accorded, hence natural justice was breached.
Whether alternative dispute resolution mechanisms may divest a person of property
ADR including traditional dispute resolution is recognised under Article 159(2)(c) but must operate within statutory and constitutional precincts, upholding the right to fair trial and to be heard.
The court accepted that Article 159(2)(c) promotes alternative forms of dispute resolution including traditional mechanisms as aids to access to justice. However, such mechanisms are subject to clause (3) and cannot contravene the Bill of Rights, be repugnant to justice or morality, or be inconsistent with the Constitution or written law. The committee's process failed these constitutional thresholds.
Legal principles established
#- An order of certiorari will issue where a decision is made without or in excess of jurisdiction or where the rules of natural justice are not complied with.
- Prohibition lies for excess or absence of jurisdiction and for departure from the rules of natural justice.
Court orders
#- 1.A writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings, findings and decision of the Respondents over parcel of land allotment No. BI41 (Formerly LR. No 9/Business) in the letter dated 2nd February 2024
- 2.An order of prohibition against the Respondents prohibiting them and the Interested Party from proceeding with the execution of the aforesaid decision
- 3.The Ex-parte Applicant awarded costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 23(3)(f) and 47 of the Constitution; Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act; Order 53 Rule 1(1), (2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sein v County Public Land Registrar & another; Sein (Interested Party) (Judicial Review E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1447 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review Notice of Motion dated 13th May 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1447/eng@2025-03-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.