Republic v County Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer, Trans Nzoia County & another; Lokwawi & another (Interested Parties); Korii (Ex parte) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6761 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court quashed a land officer's decision to subdivide a settler's plot because he was never told the complaint against him or given a fair hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the 1st respondent, having received full consideration under the letter of offer, had jurisdiction to summon the exparte applicant and subject the suit land to subdivision in favour of the interested parties
- 2.Whether the decision of 20/11/2024 was reached in violation of Articles 40, 47 and 50 of the Constitution and the rules of natural justice
- 3.Whether the exparte applicant is entitled to orders of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
Key legal issues
#Fair administrative action and notice under Section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act
The 1st respondent failed to give the applicant notice of the nature and reasons for the complaint and decision, and no opportunity to respond, breaching Articles 47 and 50 and Section 4(3)(a) and (b) of the Fair Administrative Action Act
The court found that the respondent did not avail the nature of the complaint, the date, the manner of hearing, or the proceedings as required by the Fair Administrative Action Act. Administrative action adversely affecting rights requires prior, adequate notice of the nature and reasons for the decision and an opportunity to be heard. Absent this, the proceedings and decision were arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Denial of fair hearing renders decision null and void
Violation of natural justice vitiates the decision irrespective of whether the same result would have been reached
Relying on General Medical Council vs Spackman and Onyango Oloo vs Attorney General, the court held that a violation of natural justice cannot be cured by showing the same decision would have been reached fairly; denial of the right to be heard renders the resultant decision null and void.
Legitimate expectation and property rights upon compliance with the letter of offer
Upon full payment and taking vacant possession, the applicant acquired rights which could not be arbitrarily varied without reasons
The court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation safeguards against arbitrariness; having complied with the letter of offer, the applicant was entitled to issuance of the discharge of charge under the repealed Agriculture Act, and the respondents' unilateral variation of the offer letter offended Articles 40, 47 and 50.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision
- Once an applicant meets the terms and conditions of an offer letter, the respondent cannot vary it midstream without giving reasons; doing so offends Articles 40, 47 and 50 of the Constitution
- Certiorari simply quashes a decision and leaves the decision-maker free to decide what steps to take next
Court orders
#- 1.An order of certiorari quashing the decision of the Trans Nzoia County Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer made on 20/11/2024 to subdivide Plot No. 263 Kanyarkwat Settlement Scheme
- 2.An order of prohibition stopping the respondents from effecting the said subdivision decision
- 3.Costs to the applicant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 23, 40, 47 and 50 of the Constitution; Fair Administrative Action Act; orders of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
Relief refused
#Order of mandamus compelling the Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement to issue a Certificate of Discharge for Plot No. 263
The court found no basis to issue mandamus in the manner framed, as mandamus does not compel the doing of an act in a particular manner unless the manner is prescribed by law
Costs
Costs to the applicant
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The upshot is that the decision-making process and the outcome call for quashing by an order of certiorari. The respondents are prohibited from efiecting the said decision. The court finds no basis to issue an order of mandamus in the manner framed by the exparte applicant.
Without giving reasons why the terms and conditions of the ofier letter were being changed midstream, or varying the letter of ofier, I find the respondents’ actions ofiended Articles 40, 47, and 50 of the Constitution.
Costs to the applicant.
the administrator shall give the person afiected by the decision prove, and adequate notice of the nature and reasons for the decision and an opportunity to be heard and to make representation in that regard.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment records appearance by counsel on 19/3/2024, which is inconsistent with a notice of motion dated 26/2/2025
The name of the 1st interested party is not given anywhere in the judgment, though the applicant's submissions refer to the 1st interested party's affidavit sworn for the 2nd interested party
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v County Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer, Trans Nzoia County & another; Lokwawi & another (Interested Parties); Korii (Ex parte) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6761 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review Application dated 26/2/2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6761/eng@2025-10-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.