Republic v Arbitration Committee Mwea Irrigation Scheme & another; Joseph & 3 others (Ex parte Applicants); Murira & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Judicial Review E004 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 5359 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court quashed a Mwea Irrigation Scheme committee's land inheritance decision because the hearing was unfair, even though the committee had power to decide.
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 Arbitration Committee had jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute
- 2.Whether the Ex-parte applicants were denied their right to be heard
- 3.Whether the order of certiorari can issue
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee
The Committee had jurisdiction to receive and determine nominations and resolve disputes among dependants under Section 25 of the Irrigation Act, 2019 and Regulation 36 of the Irrigation (General) Regulations, 2021, as the 2009 consent order did not amount to a valid nomination.
The applicable framework is the 2021 Regulations made under the Irrigation Act, 2019. A nomination must be in writing, addressed to and registered with the Authority, and approved by the Scheme Management Committee. The 2009 consent order in Wang'uru SRM CC No. 61 of 2007 met none of these requirements, so no valid nomination existed. In the absence of a nomination, Regulation 36(4) empowers dependants to nominate a successor, and disputes among dependants fall to the Committee under Section 25.
Fair administrative action
The Committee's hearing and verdict denied the Ex-parte Applicants fair administrative action contrary to Article 47 of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015.
The hearing notice did not disclose the nature of the dispute; the alleged complainant was absent yet recorded as testifying; the Applicants could not cross-examine or respond; no reasons were given; and the verdict was communicated weeks later without explanation. The Respondents did not controvert these improprieties nor adduce evidence of due process. The cumulative deficiencies rendered the proceedings unlawful, unreasonable and procedurally unfair.
Whether certiorari should issue
Certiorari issued to quash the verdict of 11th July 2023 despite the Committee having jurisdiction, because the process was procedurally defective.
Relying on Kenya National Examination Council v Republic ex parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge, certiorari lies where a decision is made without jurisdiction, in excess of statutory authority, or in breach of natural justice. Although jurisdiction existed, the hearing and verdict were tainted by unfairness and lack of transparency, warranting judicial review intervention.
Legal principles established
#- Certiorari lies to quash decisions made without jurisdiction, in excess of statutory authority, or in breach of the rules of natural justice.
- A written nomination of a successor to an irrigation permit holder must be addressed to and registered with the Authority and approved by the Scheme Management Committee.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of certiorari quashing the verdict of the 1st Respondent made on 11th July 2023 in respect of Rice Holding No. 3178, Unit 7, Wang'uru, in terms of prayer (1) of the Notice of Motion dated 23rd October 2023
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review under Order 53 CPR and Article 22/47 of the Constitution; Irrigation Act, 2019
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.
Accordingly, an order of certiorari to quash of the 1st Respondent made on 11th July 2023 is hereby issued in terms of prayer (1) of the Notice of Motion dated 23rd October 2023.
The parties will bear their own costs of the application.
I am satisfied that the Ex-parte Applicants were denied a fair hearing contrary to the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015.
Procedural impropriety is when there is a failure to act fairly on the part of the decisionmaking authority in the process of taking a decision.
the Court finds that while the Committee had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute under Section 25 of the Irrigation Act, 2019 and Regulation 36 of the Irrigation (General) Regulations, 2021, the proceedings culminating in the verdict of 11th July 2023 were procedurally fiawed and unfair
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment alternates between 1st and 2nd Respondent labels in places, and the certiorari order omits the words 'proceedings and verdict' though evidently intended.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Arbitration Committee Mwea Irrigation Scheme & another; Joseph & 3 others (Ex parte Applicants); Murira & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Judicial Review E004 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 5359 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5359/eng@2025-07-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.