Kamumo v Mugo & 6 others (Environment and Land Petition E004 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7456 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court cancelled a land rehearing because officials failed to explain why they were redoing it, and ordered a fresh joint hearing of three appeals.
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 petition meets the threshold of a constitutional petition under the law
- 2.Whether the decision of the Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement remitting back the three appeals and seeking clarity on the ownership of land parcel number 537 Kamwimbi Adjudication Section violated Articles 10, 40 and 159(2) and (3) of the Constitution
- 3.Whether the rehearing proceedings conducted by the Deputy County Commissioner, Igambang'ombe Sub-County pursuant to the notices dated 29/11/2023 and 14/12/2023 in Appeal Case No 417 of 2011 violated the petitioner's rights under the Constitution
- 4.If the answers to (i) and/or (ii) are in the affirmative, what are the appropriate remedies
- 5.What order should be made with regard to costs of the petition
Key legal issues
#Whether the petition met the constitutional petition threshold
The petition met the threshold of Rule 10 of the Mutunga Rules; it disclosed the petitioner's name and address, the facts relied on, the constitutional provisions violated and the reliefs sought.
The court tested the petition against Rule 10 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules 2013, which codifies the essentials formerly captured in Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic. The court verified item by item that the name, address, facts, provisions violated (Articles 10, 40, 47 and 159(2) and (3)) and relief sought were all disclosed, and found the threshold satisfied.
Whether the Director's decision remitting the three appeals and seeking clarity on ownership violated Articles 10, 40 and 159(2) and (3)
No violation. The Director's decision requesting clarity was proper because of serious contradictions and irreconcilable errors rendering the Minister's awards unimplementable.
The Director identified irreconcilable anomalies: the ruling in Appeal 417/2011 was dated 19/1/2022 yet recorded a hearing on 10/6/2022; contradictory awards on the same parcel (one to Njagi Muchunje in Appeal 194/2017, one to the petitioner in Appeal 417/2011); and unsigned or undated rulings. The court held there was no other logical and lawful way to resolve the impasse and found no iota of constitutional violation.
Whether the rehearing conducted by the Deputy County Commissioner pursuant to the notices of 29/11/2023 and 14/12/2023 violated the petitioner's rights
Yes. The delegatee failed to give prior and adequate notice of the nature and reasons for the proposed rehearing, breaching Article 47(1) and (2) and Section 4(3)(a) of the Fair Administrative Action Act; the proceedings and any resulting decision are null and void.
Although the delegatee was entitled to invite parties to a fresh hearing after his earlier decisions failed to resolve ownership, Article 47 and Section 4(3)(a) required him to explain the nature and reasons for the proposed action. The two letters merely fixed dates and venue without explaining why a second hearing was being undertaken. The infringement rendered the hearing and any decision flowing from it null and void.
Appropriate remedies
The Minister's delegatee to hear afresh, jointly, the three appeals (417/2011, 194/2017, 227/2019) in compliance with Article 47(1) and (2) and Section 4(3) and (4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
Having found the delegatee's rehearing proceedings unconstitutional but no violation by the Director, the court declined the declaration against the Director and the order to effect the impugned award and issue a title. Instead it fashioned an order for a joint fresh hearing of all three appeals, which concern the same parcel, with full compliance with fair administrative action requirements.
Costs
Each party to bear their respective costs since there was no evidence the contradictions and errors were deliberate.
The court found no deliberate conduct behind the anomalies that spawned the petition and, in the circumstances, declined to award costs against any party, ordering each party to bear their own costs of the petition.
Legal principles established
#- An administrator proposing to undertake a fresh hearing of a matter adversely affecting rights must give prior and adequate notice of the nature and reasons for the proposed action under Article 47(1) and (2) and Section 4(3)(a) of the Fair Administrative Action Act; failure renders the proceedings null and void.
- The essential contents of a constitutional petition are now governed by Rule 10 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules 2013.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the proceedings conducted by the Minister's delegatee (the Deputy County Commissioner for Igambang'ombe Sub-County) in Appeal No 417 of 2011 relating to land parcel number 537 Kamwimbi Adjudication Section, pursuant to the notices dated 29/11/2023 and 14/12/2023, violated the Constitution and are null and void, and any decision made pursuant to those proceedings is null and void
- 2.The Minister's delegatee shall hear afresh Appeals numbers 417 of 2011, 194 of 2017 and 227 of 2019 in a joint hearing after complying with Article 47(1) and (2) of the Constitution and Section 4(3) and (4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act
- 3.Each party to bear their respective costs of the petition
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 10, 40, 47 and 159(2) and (3) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (constitutional petition)
Relief refused
#Prayer (a): declaration that the Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement's decision to rehear Appeal 417 of 2011 violated Articles 10, 40 and 159(2) and (3) and is null and void
The court found no violation of the Constitution in the Director's decision requiring clarity because the Minister's determinations were unimplementable
Prayer (c): order directing the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th respondents to effect the decision in Appeal No 417 of 2011 and issue a title deed to the petitioner
The decision dated 19/1/2022 was unimplementable and no lawful hearing generated the rectified decision dated 19/1/2023, which the petitioner procured unilaterally
Costs
Parties shall bear their respective costs of the petition.
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.
For the above reasons, this petition partially succeeds in the following terms:
The proceedings conducted by the Minister's delegatee (the Deputy County Commissioner for Igambang'ombe Sub-County) in Appeal No 417 of 2011 relating to land parcel number 537 Kamwimbi Adjudication Section, pursuant to the notices dated 29/11/2023 and 14/12/2023 violated the Constitution and are therefore null and void and any decision made pursuant to the said proceedings is null and void.
The Minister's delegatee shall hear afresh Appeal numbers 417 of 2011; 194 of 2017; and 227 of 2019 in a joint hearing of the said three appeals after complying with the requirements of Article 47 (1) and (2) of the Constitution and Section 4 (3) and (4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
Parties shall bear their respective costs of the petition.
Article 47 (1) and (2) of the Constitution and Section 4 (3) (a) of the Fair Administrative Action Act required the Minister's delegatee to give prior and adequate notice of the nature and reasons for the proposed action.
Given the above serious contradictions and irreconcilable errors, it is the view of the court that the decision of the Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement requesting that the Minister's delegatee provides clarity on ownership of the suit land was proper.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is internally inconsistent as to the date of the ruling in Appeal No 417/2011 and the petitioner's further affidavit itself refers to a verdict 'issued on 19th of January 2023' while the exhibited ruling bears 19/1/2022, an anomaly the court acknowledged but the exact date remains unresolved on the record.
The judgment refers to the petitioner as 'the appellant' when discussing reliefs sought, though the matter is a petition, not an appeal.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamumo v Mugo & 6 others (Environment and Land Petition E004 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7456 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (petition dated 19/12/2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7456/eng@2025-10-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.