Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutJudicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Application (Notice of Motion dated 14th March 2025)· [2026] KEELC 85 (KLR)

Republic v Kenya Forest Service & 2 others; National Land Commission (Interested Party); Amusibwa & 6 others (Ex parte Applicants) (Suing on Behalf of the Ngerek Community) (Judicial Review E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 85 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 January 2026
GOG M A Ongondo
2,073 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court struck out a community's bid to force forest degazettement, ruling that only Parliament can revoke public forest land in Kenya.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Ex parte Applicants, members of the Ngerek Community, sought orders of mandamus compelling the Kenya Forest Service, the Director of Survey and the Nandi County Government to implement the National Land Commission's determination of 7th February 2019, gazetted on 1st March 2019 as Gazette Notice No. 1995, requiring degazettement of the excised area from Nandi South Forest and handover of land to the Ngerek and Koibem Communities on a land-for-land basis. The grievance arose from the 1996 Chepkumia Exchange Programme Settlement Scheme under which the communities gave up titles but never received alternative land. Only the 3rd Respondent, the Nandi County Government, opposed, contending lack of locus standi as regards the Koibem Community and that degazettement of a public forest is exclusively Parliament's function under section 34 of the Forest Conservation and Management Act, 2016. The court framed three issues: locus standi, jurisdiction and entitlement to relief. On locus standi, applying Order 1 Rules 8 and 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Alfred Njau v City Council of Nairobi, the court held that the authority to sue covered only Ngerek members, so the Applicants could not obtain orders for the Koibem Community. On jurisdiction, following Albert Chaurembo Mumba and Speaker of National Assembly v Njenga Karume, and invoking Article 62(1)(g), the court held that degazettement of public forest is a legislative function requiring parliamentary approval and that granting the orders would amount to judicial overreach. The application was struck out as misconceived and incompetent, with each party bearing its own costs, the court noting the matter was of public interest.

Key legal issues

#
01

Locus standi to sue on behalf of the Koibem Community

Holding

The Applicants lacked authority to represent the Koibem Community, whose interests were affected by the NLC determination

Reasoning

The NLC determination affected both Ngerek and Koibem communities, but the signed authority (JA-1) covered only Ngerek community members. Order 1 Rules 8 and 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules govern representative suits and authority to sue. The Applicants did not show written authority from the Koibem Community, so they could not obtain orders on its behalf.

p. 4
02

Jurisdiction to order degazettement of a public forest

Holding

The court lacks jurisdiction; degazettement is a parliamentary function under section 34 of the Forest Conservation and Management Act 2016

Reasoning

Public land includes government forests and water catchment areas under Article 62(1)(g). Revocation of forest status requires a parliamentary resolution under section 34 of the Forest Conservation and Management Act 2016. Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not merits, and issuing the orders sought would amount to judicial overreach and usurpation of legislative and executive functions.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Degazettement of public land comprising government forests is a legislative and executive function requiring parliamentary approval under section 34 of the Forest Conservation and Management Act 2016, and courts must exercise judicial restraint
  • Where an alternative dispute resolution method is established by legislation, courts must exercise restraint and defer to the statutory body
  • A party suing in a representative capacity must show written authority from all persons on whose behalf the suit is brought

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 14th March 2025 is struck out as misconceived and incompetent
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the instant application
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and the Environment and Land Court Act, 2015; judicial review jurisdiction under Articles 23(3)(f) and 47(1)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Kenya Forest Service & 2 others; National Land Commission (Interested Party); Amusibwa & 6 others (Ex parte Applicants) (Suing on Behalf of the Ngerek Community) (Judicial Review E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 85 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Application (Notice of Motion dated 14th March 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/85/eng@2026-01-20

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.