M'kaura & another (Suing on Their Own Behalf and in Their Capacity as Officials and Representatives of Mwokamu Saba Self Help Group) v District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer Igembe North Sub-County & 3 others; M’aciita (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E003 of 2024 & Judicial Review E004 of 2024 (Consolidated)) [2024] KEELC 6354 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court quashed a minister's land appeal decision because it lacked reasons, evidence review and a fair hearing, 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 the 2nd respondent heard and determined the minister's appeal in line with the law
- 2.If the proceedings and the decision made on 13.3.2024 ought to be quashed
- 3.If the court should prohibit the implementation of the directions
- 4.What is the order as to costs?
Key legal issues
#Whether the 2nd respondent (minister's delegatee) heard and determined the appeal in accordance with the law
The decision was quashed for procedural impropriety, unfairness and unreasonableness; the delegatee failed to consider the grounds of appeal, review the adjudication records and give reasons
The court held the impugned proceedings and decision did not show the grounds of appeal, whether the minister considered them, reasons for dismissing them, why the applicants' evidence was disbelieved, or any review of prior proceedings. Applying Article 47 and the Fair Administrative Action Act framework, the failure to give reasons and to engage with the evidence rendered the decision procedurally improper and unreasonable.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review after 2010 is elevated to constitutional supervision of public authorities and quasi-judicial tribunals
- A minister hearing an adjudication appeal must consider the grounds of appeal, analyse the evidence and give reasons for the decision
- A decision-maker's decision must be based on logical proof or evidential material by an unbiased decision maker
Court orders
#- 1.Order of certiorari calling for and quashing the decision and findings of the 1st and 2nd respondents in Minister's Appeal No. 276 of 2023 delivered on 13.3.2024 on grounds of procedural impropriety, unfairness and unreasonableness
- 2.The appeal remitted for re-hearing by a different minister's delegatee apart from M. C Wambugu, within six months from the date of the order
- 3.Prohibition order stopping the implementation of the quashed decision
- 4.Costs to the ex parte applicants
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 23(3)(f), 40, 47, 48 and 50 of the Constitution, Order 53 Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 26-29 of the Land Adjudication Act (Cap 284)
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 is that I call for and quash the decision on account of procedural impropriety, unfairness and unreasonableness.
The appeal is as a result of this remitted for re-hearing by a difierent minister's delegatee apart from M. C Wambugu, within six months from the date hereof. A prohibition order shall issue, stopping the implementation of the said decision.
Costs to the exparte applicants.
an order of certiorari will be issued if the decision is made without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or where the rules of natural justice are not adhered to or for any other reasonable cause.
Article 40 (3) of the Constitution provides that parliament shall not enact a law that permits the state or any person to deprive a person of property arbitrarily.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment refers to 'Sections 26-21' of the Land Adjudication Act, apparently a typographical error
Penina Nadako Kisilwa vs IEBC & others attributed to the Supreme Court of Kenya; the citation does not identify the court and the attribution may be erroneous
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "M'kaura & another (Suing on Their Own Behalf and in Their Capacity as Officials and Representatives of Mwokamu Saba Self Help Group) v District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer Igembe North Sub-County & 3 others; M’aciita (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E003 of 2024 & Judicial Review E004 of 2024 (Consolidated)) [2024] KEELC 6354 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Judicial Review (Notice of motion dated 25.4.2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6354/eng@2024-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.