Republic v Kenya Forest Service & 2 others; National Land Commission (Interested Party); Amusibwa & 6 others (Ex parte Applicants) (Suing on Behalf of the Ngerek Community) (Judicial Review E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 85 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court struck out a community's bid to force forest degazettement, ruling that only Parliament can revoke public forest land in Kenya.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.The Applicants' locus standi to mount this application
- 2.This Court's jurisdiction over this matter
- 3.If so, the entitlement of the applicants to the orders sought and/or the orders to issue for the ends of justice
Key legal issues
#Locus standi to sue on behalf of the Koibem Community
The Applicants lacked authority to represent the Koibem Community, whose interests were affected by the NLC determination
The NLC determination affected both Ngerek and Koibem communities, but the signed authority (JA-1) covered only Ngerek community members. Order 1 Rules 8 and 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules govern representative suits and authority to sue. The Applicants did not show written authority from the Koibem Community, so they could not obtain orders on its behalf.
Jurisdiction to order degazettement of a public forest
The court lacks jurisdiction; degazettement is a parliamentary function under section 34 of the Forest Conservation and Management Act 2016
Public land includes government forests and water catchment areas under Article 62(1)(g). Revocation of forest status requires a parliamentary resolution under section 34 of the Forest Conservation and Management Act 2016. Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not merits, and issuing the orders sought would amount to judicial overreach and usurpation of legislative and executive functions.
Legal principles established
#- Degazettement of public land comprising government forests is a legislative and executive function requiring parliamentary approval under section 34 of the Forest Conservation and Management Act 2016, and courts must exercise judicial restraint
- Where an alternative dispute resolution method is established by legislation, courts must exercise restraint and defer to the statutory body
- A party suing in a representative capacity must show written authority from all persons on whose behalf the suit is brought
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 14th March 2025 is struck out as misconceived and incompetent
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the instant application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and the Environment and Land Court Act, 2015; judicial review jurisdiction under Articles 23(3)(f) and 47(1)
Relief refused
#Order of mandamus compelling the 1st Respondent to implement the NLC recommendation requiring facilitation of degazettement of the excised area from Nandi South Forest
Application is misconceived and incompetent; degazettement of a public forest is a legislative function under section 34 of the Forest Conservation and Management Act 2016
Order of mandamus compelling the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to expedite the excision and hand over the forest area to the Ngerek and Koibem communities
Applicants lack locus standi to act for the Koibem Community and the court lacks jurisdiction to order degazettement
Costs
Parties to bear their own costs of the instant application.
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.
In the premises, it is the finding of this Court that the instant application generated by way of a Notice of Motion date 14th March 2025 is misconceived and incompetent. The same is hereby struck out.
In that regard, parties to bear their own costs of the instant application.
it is Parliament which is mandated to revoke a forest status through a resolution. So, the orders sought in the application would amount to judicial overreach as it is not the function of the court in the first instance, to degazette a public forest thus, I proceed to exercise judicial restraint accordingly.
the applicants lack locus standi to originate this application and obtain orders sought herein on behalf of the Koibem community.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment refers to the Applicants in places as 'the 1st Applicant' and inconsistently numbers the interested party ('the 1st Interested Party') though only one interested party is named
The NLC recommendation date is inconsistently rendered ('2-19' for 2019) and gazette notice spelling varies ('gazzeted'/'gazzeted')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Kenya Forest Service & 2 others; National Land Commission (Interested Party); Amusibwa & 6 others (Ex parte Applicants) (Suing on Behalf of the Ngerek Community) (Judicial Review E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 85 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Application (Notice of Motion dated 14th March 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/85/eng@2026-01-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.