Republic v Homa Bay Land Registrar & 2 others; Odhiambo & another (Exparte); Odhiambo (Interested Party)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed a family's bid to remove a step-son's name from family land, ruling the 1993 land adjudication was lawful and the claim came far too late.
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 applicants established a case for the grant of orders of certiorari and mandamus sought
- 2.Whether the Land Adjudication Officer followed due process and accorded fair administrative action in including Tom Kwala Odhiambo as co-owner of the suit land
- 3.Whether an order of certiorari was available to quash the Mbita Resident Magistrate's Court Civil Case No. 6 of 2016 proceedings
- 4.Whether the claim was time-barred under the Limitation of Actions Act
Key legal issues
#Whether the Land Adjudication Officer violated the right to fair administrative action
No violation; the officer accorded the 1st ex parte applicant an opportunity to be heard and reduced the decision in writing
The adjudication record of June 28, 1993 showed objection no. 660 lodged by the 1st ex parte applicant herself was allowed, and the proceedings bearing her thumbprint showed she requested transfer of the suit land to Tom Kwala Odhiambo. The officer thus heard her before granting her request and gave written reasons, satisfying article 47 and section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
Whether certiorari was available against the magistrate's court proceedings
Certiorari not available; no records were availed to support the assertion that the suit was dismissed for non-attendance
The applicants contended that Mbita RM Civil Case No. 6 of 2016 was dismissed for non-attendance rather than heard to conclusion, but produced no records to substantiate this. Without evidence of the proceedings or decision sought to be quashed, the judicial review remedy of certiorari could not issue.
Whether the claim was time-barred
Yes; the cause of action arose in 1993 and the application was filed in 2022, beyond the twelve-year limitation period
Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act bars actions to recover land after twelve years from accrual of the right of action. The decision complained of was made on June 28, 1993, yet the application was lodged in 2022, far outside the limitation window, rendering the claim incompetent.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review concerns the legality of the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision
- An action to recover land may not be brought after twelve years from when the right of action accrued
- Courts and tribunals have a duty to hear parties before them, upholding the audi alteram partem rule
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion application dated March 1, 2023 be and is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 53 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; judicial review also entrenched in the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015
Relief refused
#Order of certiorari to quash Mbita RM Civil Case No. 6 of 2016 proceedings, the ruling dated January 25, 2022 and subsequent processes
Applicants did not avail any records to support their assertion that the suit was dismissed for non-attendance
Orders of mandamus to expunge the name of Tom Kwala Odhiambo from land parcel Lambwe West B878
The Land Adjudication Officer followed due process; the 1st ex parte applicant herself requested the inclusion; claim also time-barred
Costs
Dismissed with no orders as to costs
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.
Wherefore, the application dated March 1, 2023 and lodged herein on even date, be and is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.
In the foregone, it is the finding of this court that the application is incompetent and unmeritorious.
The cause of action arose in the 1993 yet the instant application was filed in 2022. Clearly, the period of twelve years had lapsed. Therefore, the instant claim is time-barred.
It is therefore, this court's considered view that the Land Adjudication Officer followed due process in arriving at the said decision.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment refers to 'Land Registration Act, 2016 (2012)' - inconsistent year designation
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Homa Bay Land Registrar & 2 others; Odhiambo & another (Exparte); Odhiambo (Interested Party)", Case Analysis (2023). Judicial Review 3 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/20920/eng@2023-10-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.