National Land Commission v Charlise Development Company Ltd (Environment and Land Appeal E118 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2059 (KLR)

Section 133D(1) enumerates three permissible grounds of appeal from the Land Acquisition Tribunal. Though the memorandum prefixed grounds with 'erred in fact and in law', their substance concerned the Tribunal's interpretation and application of statutory and constitutional provisions, which are questions of law. The word 'may' in Section 133D(2) is permissive, and even if the restriction to questions of law is mandatory, this appeal qualifies. A ruling on review qualifies as a 'decision' appealable under Section 133D(1).

Order 1 Rule 10(2) confers discretionary power to join necessary parties, but the application here came after final judgment on the merits. Under the doctrine of functus officio, a tribunal exhausts its jurisdiction save for limited residual powers. Post-judgment joinder is exceptional and impermissible where it seeks to re-litigate resolved issues. Public interest in finality and rule of law outweighs the financial exposure argument; allowing state agencies to re-open concluded cases due to administrative lethargy would create legal instability.

Review grounds are exhaustive and restrictive, and the applicant bears a heavy burden to show both novelty and due diligence. The Appellant, as acquiring authority and constitutional custodian of public land records, possessed its own records and cannot claim 'newly discovered' evidence from itself. Inadvertence of counsel or bureaucratic delay does not constitute due diligence. No error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated, and 'sufficient reason' cannot be a refuge for a party that failed to present its best case at trial.

An allotment letter is merely a letter of offer. Where a formal Title or Grant has already been issued, as here, a lapsed allotment letter serves only as a collateral attack on registration, which must be mounted through a fresh suit for cancellation of title under Section 80 of the Land Registration Act, not as a post-judgment application in a compensation claim.

Although costs normally follow the event, this is not an invariable rule. Following the Supreme Court's approach in Standard Chartered Financial Services Limited v Manchester Outfitters, which bore in mind the principles in Rai v Rai, the Court found good reason to depart from the general rule and directed each party to bear its own costs of the appeal.