Republic v Land Acquisition Tribunal; Mulu & 55 others & 2 others (Interested Parties); Kenya National Highways Authority (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E039 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3411 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court ruled KeNHA must challenge the Land Acquisition Tribunal's jurisdiction through an appeal, not judicial review, since the two-member tribunal was properly constituted.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Land Acquisition Tribunal was properly constituted with quorum to hear TRLAP No. E038 of 2024
The Land Act does not stipulate a quorum; stating only three members, so the two-member Tribunal was properly constituted
Section 133A(1) of the Land Act establishes a three-member Tribunal but contains no express quorum provision. The court found that absence of the third member did not invalidate the Tribunal's functioning, and noted the Ex parte Applicant itself had earlier invoked Section 133C to oust ELC Kitui's jurisdiction, directing parties to the Tribunal.
Whether the Applicant was entitled to leave for judicial review of certiorari and prohibition
No; the issues should have been pursued by appeal under Section 133D of the Land Act, not judicial review
The court held the applicant's challenge to the Tribunal's jurisdiction was properly a matter for appeal. Leave requires an arguable case fit for further investigation; the court found none given the Tribunal's proper constitution and the availability of the appellate route.
Whether leave should operate as a stay of Tribunal proceedings
Moot as leave was denied
Order 53 rule 1(4) permits the judge to direct that leave operate as a stay, but since leave was refused, no stay issued. The Interested Parties had also argued stay would impede compensation claims of Project Affected Persons protected under Article 40.
Legal principles established
#- Leave for judicial review is granted only where, on the material available, there is an arguable case fit for further investigation at a full inter partes hearing
- Prohibition lies against an inferior tribunal acting in excess or absence of jurisdiction, but not to correct course, practice or procedure or a wrong decision on the merits
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the Chamber Summons application dated 20th December 2024
- 2.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction under Order 53 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; tribunal established under Section 133A of the Land Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kenya National Highways Authority v Mandev Ltd & another (Environment and Land Appeal E050 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3949 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 3949 (KLR)30 Jun 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Land Acquisition Tribunal; Mulu & 55 others & 2 others (Interested Parties); Kenya National Highways Authority (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E039 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3411 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review application re Chamber Summons dated 20th December 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3411/eng@2025-04-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.