Anyuor & another v Chief Executive Officer, National Irrigation Authority & another (Environment and Land Appeal E041 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1521 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Land Acquisition Tribunal cannot enforce its own costs awards by mandamus; that power rests with the High Court.
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 Tribunal erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to issue Judicial Review by way of Orders of Mandamus
- 2.Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to issue declaratory orders on constitutional violations
Key legal issues
#Whether the Land Acquisition Tribunal has jurisdiction to issue judicial review orders of mandamus to enforce its own orders on costs
The Tribunal has no such jurisdiction; judicial review orders are reserved to the High Court and courts of equal status, and mandamus directed to a tribunal must issue from a superior forum
The court held that judicial review serves to ensure quasi-judicial decisions comply with law and must issue from a court of higher hierarchy than the body against whom mandamus is sought; a tribunal cannot arrogate to itself such power over its own orders. The Appellant had muddled mandamus with enforcement of a decision to claim jurisdiction. The proper avenue is the High Court, which the Appellant had already approached in Nairobi ELC JR No. E045 of 2025.
Whether enforcement of costs relates to compulsory acquisition of land under section 133C(8) of the Land Act
No; costs relate to the proceedings and not the subject matter, so the complaint does not fall within section 133C(8)
Section 133C(8) permits the Tribunal to hear complaints under Articles 23(2) and 47(3) of the Constitution only in matters relating to compulsory acquisition of land. The court found that delay in payment of taxed costs, even though awarded by the Tribunal, did not amount to a violation of those constitutional provisions, and that seeking enforcement of costs through other means was having a second bite at the cherry.
Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to issue declaratory orders on constitutional violations
No; absent legislation under Article 23(2), original jurisdiction to determine constitutional violations vests in the High Court and courts of equal status
Article 165(3)(b) confers on the High Court jurisdiction over rights violations, and Article 23(2) permits Parliament to confer original jurisdiction on subordinate courts only 'in appropriate cases'. No such legislation conferring that jurisdiction on the Tribunal was identified, and section 133C vests no such power in the Tribunal.
Standard applicable to an appeal against the exercise of discretion
An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion unless it was exercised injudiciously, on wrong principles, or was plainly wrong
Because the Tribunal declined jurisdiction without determining the merits, the appeal was against an exercise of discretion. The court applied the settled principles that an appellate court interferes only where the discretion was exercised injudiciously or on wrong principles, citing Supermarine Handling, Mbogo v Shah and other authorities.
Legal principles established
#- A court's jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or legislation and cannot be expanded by craft or innovation
- The High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions, and courts of equal status derive similar supervisory jurisdiction
- The Land Acquisition Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue judicial review orders or determine constitutional violations save for a complaint under Articles 23(2) and 47(3) relating to compulsory acquisition of land
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Land Acquisition Tribunal at Nairobi
- Ngoje & 6 others v National Irrigation Authority & another (Tribunal Case E008, E004, E005, E006, E007, E009, E010 & E011 of 2024 (Consolidated)) [2024] KELAT 810 (KLR)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appeal from the Land Acquisition Tribunal; jurisdiction grounded on the Land Act and Articles 162(2)(b) and 165 of the Constitution (implied from the judgment; no single provision expressly invoked for the appeal)
Relief refused
#Appeal against the Tribunal's decision striking out the originating motion for enforcement of costs by way of mandamus
The Tribunal correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction to issue judicial review orders of mandamus; such jurisdiction belongs to the High Court and courts of equal status
Costs
The Appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
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 of the foregoing is that the Appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
it is my considered view that the tribunal was correct in its finding that it did not have the jurisdiction to determine the application before it.
From a plain reading of section 133C of the Land Act, it is apparent that the tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to issue judicial review orders or make any findings on constitutional violations save for determining a complaint under Article 23(2) and article 47(3) of the Constitution is when the same relates to compulsory acquisition of land.
A tribunal cannot arrogatye this power to issue orders of such nature over its own orders.
By coming back for enforcement of the orders for costs through other means, the applicants were having their cake and eating it or so to say having a second bite at the cherry. That is unprocedural.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number of the appeal before this court is not stated in the judgment; the appeal is identified only by the Memorandum of Appeal dated 10th December 2025 and the underlying consolidated Tribunal cases
Inconsistent reference to the constitutional provisions in section 133C(8) analysis - the judgment alternates between Article 47(2) and 47(3)
Court name inconsistently stated as 'Land Dispute Tribunal' when referring to the Land Acquisition Tribunal
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Anyuor & another v Chief Executive Officer, National Irrigation Authority & another (Environment and Land Appeal E041 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1521 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (Notice and Memorandum of Appeal dated 10th December 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1521/eng@2026-03-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.