Republic v Deputy County Commissioner Tigania Central & 3 others; Kiunye (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E021 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5340 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court quashed a land adjudication appeal decision because one party was never invited to the site visit, ordering a fresh hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether a proper case has been made to warrant grant of an order of certiorari quashing the impugned proceedings and the impugned decision of the Minister in Appeal No. 202 of 2024
Key legal issues
#Whether the failure to invite the ex-parte applicant to the locus-in-quo visit amounted to procedural impropriety
Yes - the omission was a fundamental procedural impropriety warranting certiorari.
The 1st respondent's replying affidavit did not address the allegation of non-invitation to the site visit. The right to be heard is sacrosanct, drawing on Kidero v Waititu and Pashito Holdings. Since the assertion was uncontroverted and the visit was part of the proceedings, the court found a fundamental procedural impropriety rendering the decision unsustainable.
Whether taking fresh evidence in the appeal was ultra vires
No - Regulation 4(4) of the Land Adjudication Regulations expressly permits parties to call witnesses before the Cabinet Secretary.
The applicant wrongly expected the Minister's appeal to be conducted like a civil appellate appeal. Hearings under Section 29 are governed by the Land Adjudication Regulations, under which evidence may be taken. The ultra vires contention therefore failed.
Whether an objection under Section 26 was barred by the interested party's failure to raise disputes at Committee and Arbitration Board stages
No - Section 26 confers an independent right to object on any person named in or affected by the register.
An adjudication register objection is invited after the register is made public. Parliament reserved the right to object to every affected person and did not confine the objection to an appellate mechanism, so the argument was rejected.
Whether further omissions by the delegatee compounded the irregularity
Yes - failure to obtain the applicant's thumbprint on his statement and failure to capture the delegatee's name on the award were grave omissions.
The 1st respondent himself swore that the post-determination invitation to append a signature was declined, causing a stalemate with the Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement returning the award; the exhibited letter also showed the delegatee's name was omitted from the award.
Legal principles established
#- A visit to the locus-in-quo forms part of land adjudication appeal proceedings and all affected parties are entitled to be invited; failure to invite a party is a fundamental procedural impropriety vitiating the decision.
- The Minister's delegatee hearing an appeal under Section 29 of the Land Adjudication Act may lawfully take fresh evidence from parties and witnesses.
- An objection to an adjudication register under Section 26 of the Land Adjudication Act is not purely an appellate remedy and lies for any person affected by the register.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of certiorari quashing the proceedings and the decision of the Minister's delegatee in Appeal No. 202 of 2024 relating to land parcel number 7587 in Giithu Adjudication Section
- 2.The appeal to the Minister shall be heard afresh by the Minister or a different delegatee to be appointed by the Minister
- 3.Each party to bear their respective costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 47 of the Constitution, Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act, Order 53 rules 1(1) and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules
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 visit was part of the land adjudication proceedings and all the affected parties were entitled to be invited.
Through the framework in Section 26, Parliament reserved in every person affected by the register the right to lodge an objection.
the law permits the Minister’s delegatee to take evidence from the parties to the appeal and from witnesses presented by parties to the appeal.
the proceedings and the decision of the Minister’s delegatee in Appeal No. 202 of 2024 relating to land parcel number 7587 in Giithu Adjudication Section is hereby quashed. The appeal shall be heard a fresh by the Minister or a different delegatee to be appointed by the Minister.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment describes the issue in paragraph 17 as an order of mandamus although the relief sought and granted is certiorari
Chronology inconsistency - forwarding of proceedings dated after the date of return letter
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Deputy County Commissioner Tigania Central & 3 others; Kiunye (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E021 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5340 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCL JR NO. E021 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5340/eng@2026-08-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.