Republic v National Land Commission & another; Kimani & 2 others (Exparte); Eastleigh Residents Community Association & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 8 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 2844 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court upheld the National Land Commission's revocation of the landowners' titles, ruling they received a fair hearing and judicial review cannot re-examine the decision's merits.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st Respondent's decision of 28th April 2017 was vitiated by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety
The court held the decision was not vitiated; the Applicants fully participated in the public hearing, were represented by counsel, and produced documents; no rules of natural justice were breached
The court applied Lord Diplock's trilogy of judicial review grounds. On the facts, the Applicants participated fully in the NLC's public hearing through counsel, produced documents, and were heard. The alleged importation of Anna Mumbua Nzioka's testimony concerning a different parcel was not borne out by the impugned decision, which made no reference to another parcel. The Applicants' real grievance was with the merits of the decision, which is impermissible in judicial review.
Whether the court could review the merits of the 1st Respondent's decision, including the alleged inconsistency of upholding some titles while revoking others
No; the court cannot act as an appellate body over the decision maker on the merits
Relying on Municipal Council of Mombasa v Republic & Umoja Consultants Ltd, the court reiterated that judicial review concerns the process, not the merits. The Applicants' complaint that the NLC upheld neighbouring titles while revoking theirs attacked the reasonableness of the outcome on its merits, which the court declined to entertain.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review grounds are classified as illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety
- Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision
- A party accorded an opportunity to be heard before an administrative body cannot complain of procedural unfairness merely because the substantive outcome went against it
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 25th March 2019 is dismissed
- 2.Costs awarded to the 1st Respondent and the 2nd Interested Party
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules; review of administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v National Land Commission & another; Kimani & 2 others (Exparte); Eastleigh Residents Community Association & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 8 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 2844 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review Application (Notice of Motion dated 25th March 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/2844/eng@2025-03-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.