Kenduiywo & 8 others v National Land Commission & 5 others (Constitutional Petition 15 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 5308 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court quashed the National Land Commission's gazette revocation of private land titles because owners were never given notice or a fair hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the High Court over the petition
The High Court had jurisdiction because the gravamen was violation of constitutional rights under Articles 40, 47 and 50, not a title or boundary dispute for the ELC
The respondents suggested land matters belong exclusively to the ELC under Article 162(2)(b). The Court held the petition's gravamen was not ownership or boundaries but deprivation of titles without due process, in breach of a prior High Court judgment. Such rights-violation claims are justiciable before the High Court under Article 165(3)(b) and (d). The implied preliminary objection on jurisdiction was rejected.
Fair administrative action and fair hearing
The NLC breached Articles 47 and 50(1) and Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act by failing to give the Petitioners notice, particulars of the complaint, opportunity to inspect documents or participate in hearings, rendering its decision ultra vires and invalid
Section 14(3) of the NLC Act requires notice and an opportunity to appear and inspect documents. It was uncontroverted that the Petitioners received no notice, complaint details or invitation to inspect documents. The Court held the omission was both procedurally unfair and substantively unjust, rendering the decision ultra vires and invalid even if jurisdiction existed. Denial of both fair administrative process and the right to be heard was established.
Fraudulent acquisition of titles and Article 40(6)
The Respondents failed to prove fraud to the required standard; the Petitioners demonstrated compliance with lawful processes, so the revocation without lawful justification or compensation violated Article 40
Relying on Kinyanjui Kamau v George Kamau, fraud must be proved to a standard higher than balance of probabilities. The allegation of dual dissolution meetings (1995 and 1996) was not conclusive proof of fraud. The Petitioners produced the certificate of incorporation, minutes, Land Control Board approval, mutation forms and adjudication register demonstrating lawful compliance. Suspected fraud should have been pursued in court or through criminal investigations, not unilateral administrative revocation.
Finality of judicial decisions
The NLC's revocation disregarded a binding High Court judgment in JR Misc. Application No. 799 of 2007 and undermined judicial authority contrary to Article 159(1)
The High Court had quashed the tribunal decisions and affirmed the Petitioners' claims; that order was never overturned or appealed. The Court took judicial notice that final court orders bind public bodies, and any attempt to negate them must go through proper judicial channels; otherwise it amounts to contempt of court and breaches separation of powers. The revocation was therefore an abuse of administrative power and unlawful.
Legal principles established
#- The NLC's power to review titles under Section 14 of the NLC Act must be exercised strictly in accordance with natural justice and procedural fairness, including statutory notice under Section 14(3)
- Allegations of fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved to a standard higher than a balance of probabilities
- A public body such as the NLC cannot make decisions that effectively reverse a final judgment of a superior court without seeking its setting aside through proper judicial channels
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the decision of the National Land Commission published in the Kenya Gazette of 1st March 2019 revoking the Petitioners' titles was unconstitutional, unlawful and procedurally unfair
- 2.An order of certiorari quashing the Gazette Notice published on 1st March 2019 purporting to revoke the Petitioners' titles
- 3.An order of prohibition restraining the 1st Respondent from hearing, entertaining or determining any complaint relating to the Petitioners' ownership unless proper notice and fair hearing under Articles 47 and 50(1) are guaranteed
- 4.An order of prohibition restraining the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents from acting upon, implementing or giving effect to the impugned decision
- 5.An order of prohibition restraining the 2nd Respondent from lodging, publishing or otherwise interfering with the Petitioners' title unless a competent court determines any claim in accordance with due process
- 6.A declaration that the Petitioners' titles over the parcels forming part of the subdivision of Cismara/Lemek/40 are valid, subsisting and protected under Article 40(1), subject only to lawful and fair process before a competent court
- 7.Each party shall bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 165(3)(b) and 165(3)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, with relief under Article 23(1) and (3)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenduiywo & 8 others v National Land Commission & 5 others (Constitutional Petition 15 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 5308 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Constitutional Petition dated 6th May 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5308/eng@2025-07-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.