Cheporoku v Director of Land Adjudication & Settlement & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E023 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1275 (KLR)

The court held that jurisdiction must be established before any decision-maker may act. The 1st respondent gave no evidence of when the Minister became seized of the appeal, and the 2nd respondent did not annex the grounds of appeal or payment receipts confirming timeliness. Section 29(4) of Cap 284 permits delegation only through a gazette, and none was produced, so the Minister's proceedings were tainted by illegality.

Natural justice requires that a party be informed of the grounds of appeal. The court found no evidence of service of the grounds on the exparte applicant, no proof that the Minister reviewed prior proceedings or the demarcation map as required by Sections 19, 21 and 26 of the Act, and that the site visit materials were absent yet central to the decision, contrary to Section 6(4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act.

The 2nd respondent argued that the court cannot look at merits. The court rejected this, holding that judicial review under the 2010 Constitution embeds rights-based considerations, allowing substantive inquiry where constitutional rights such as fair administrative action and principles of land policy are invoked, balancing administrative autonomy with constitutional administrative law justice.

The exparte applicant argued the 2nd respondent lacked capacity since the initial owners were deceased. Relying on Dominic Musei Ikombo v Kyule Makau, the court held that Cap 284 is not akin to the Civil Procedure Act and that Section 13 contemplates a guardian or representative under African customary law, not a legal representative under succession law; the ground therefore lacked merit.