Keshio & 2 others v County Government of Kisumu & another
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that land decisions affecting a county cannot stand unless that county was properly told what claim it had to answer.
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 High Court misapprehended the dispute by treating the NLC proceedings as concerning county boundaries rather than historical land injustices under Article 67(2)(e)
- 2.Whether the County Government of Kisumu was denied a fair hearing before the National Land Commission
- 3.Whether the County Government was a necessary party to the proceedings before the Commission
- 4.Whether the High Court's judgment unduly curtailed the Commission's constitutional mandate
- 5.Whether the appellants had locus standi to pursue the appeal having ceased to be officials or trustees of the Nyando Valley Association
Key legal issues
#Whether the recommendation inevitably affected county boundary interests despite the Gazette Notice not expressly referring to boundaries
The practical consequence of the recommendation was to affect land lying between Kisumu and Nandi Counties, so the Judge could not be faulted for concluding boundary interests were affected.
The claim sought restoration of part of L.R. No. 11840 which fell between both Kisumu and Nandi Counties. Although the Gazette Notice did not expressly mention county boundaries, the practical effect of the recommendation touched land in both counties. The court looked to substance and consequence rather than the form of the notice, upholding the High Court's characterisation of the dispute's impact.
Whether the County Government of Kisumu was accorded a fair hearing before the NLC
No - the County Government was neither named as a party nor served with the claim disclosing the issues it was required to answer; an invitation alone is insufficient.
Article 50(1) guarantees every person a fair hearing, and Article 47 and natural justice require that a person whose interests are affected by an administrative decision be heard. The question was not mere knowledge of proceedings but notice of the claim to be answered. The appellants and the NLC failed to avail evidence proving the County Government was named as a party or served with documentation disclosing its interests would be directly affected.
Whether the County Government was a necessary party to the NLC proceedings
Yes - once the Commission contemplated allocating public land within Kisumu County to third parties from a different county, the County Government's interests were directly affected and it was entitled to be heard.
The court rejected the label-based approach. What matters is whether the decision was capable of affecting another person's legal rights or interests. The recommendation to set aside public land held within Kisumu County for settlement of members of an Association from a different county directly engaged the County Government's interests as holder of the land in trust, making it a necessary party entitled to a hearing.
Whether the High Court judgment curtailed the NLC's constitutional mandate
No - the judgment did not oust the Commission's jurisdiction; it only required the claim to be reheard afresh after all affected parties were afforded participation.
The Judge did not hold that the NLC lacked jurisdiction over historical land injustices. The judgment merely affirmed that constitutional power must be exercised with procedural fairness. Rather than foreclosing the claim, the judgment required a fresh hearing before the Commission with all affected parties participating, preserving the mandate while enforcing fair process.
Locus standi of the appellants to pursue the appeal
The appellants, having ceased to be officials or trustees of the Nyando Valley Association which opposes the appeal, lacked standing to continue litigating on its behalf.
During the hearing it became apparent the appellants had ceased to hold the offices through which they derived authority to represent the Association. The Association itself opposed the appeal and supported the proposed rehearing. The court held that without those offices the appellants no longer possessed the requisite legal standing to litigate on the Association's behalf or insist on reinstatement of the quashed decision.
Legal principles established
#- An invitation to attend proceedings, without disclosure of the nature of the claim and the issues to be determined, does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of a fair hearing.
- The test for necessary party status is whether the decision was capable of affecting the legal rights or interests of another person, not the label attached to the proceedings.
- The exercise of the NLC's constitutional power to redress historical land injustices must conform to the requirements of procedural fairness.
- A person who has ceased to hold the office through which they derived authority to represent an entity lacks the legal standing to continue litigating on its behalf.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.Each party shall bear its own costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kisumu
- Petition No. 4 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Constitution and applicable appellate statute; appeal from High Court constitutional petition
Relief refused
#Allowance of the appeal and reinstatement/upholding of the NLC decision in Gazette Notice No. 1995
The County Government was not afforded a meaningful opportunity to be heard; the certiorari was properly issued
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs of the appeal
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.
An invitation to attend proceedings, without disclosure of the nature of the claim and the issues to be determined, cannot satisfy the constitutional requirement and threshold of fair hearing.
The test is not the label attached to the proceedings but whether the decision was capable of affecting the legal rights or interests of another person.
The right to be heard is a valued right. It would offend all notions of justice if the rights of a party were to be prejudiced or affected without the party being afforded an opportunity to be heard.
Having ceased to hold the offices through which they derived authority to represent the Association, the appellants no longer possess the requisite legal standing to continue litigating on its behalf or to insist upon reinstatement of the quashed decision.
We find no basis for interfering with the judgment and decree of the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Given the 2nd respondent’s willingness to rehear the complaint and the importance of allowing all affected parties to participate in that process, we direct that each party shall bear its own costs of the appeal.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Keshio & 2 others v County Government of Kisumu & another", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal E061 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1853/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.