Republic v Deputy County Commissioner Tigania Central & 3 others; Gatebia (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E015 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1303 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court quashed a land adjudication appeal decision because the applicant was never given notice, a hearing, or a chance to be heard.
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 impugned decision of the Minister (1st Respondent) is tainted with procedural impropriety and illegality or otherwise
- 2.Whether the rights and fundamental freedoms of the applicant were violated/infringed upon or otherwise
Key legal issues
#Procedural impropriety in the Minister's appeal proceedings
The proceedings were vitiated by procedural impropriety: no record showing the applicant was afforded opportunity to tender evidence, call witnesses or cross-examine; the locus in quo visit was conducted without notice to or participation of the applicant.
The court reviewed the decision of the 1st Respondent and found the record wanting: it lacked dates of proceedings, presence of parties, witnesses called and testimonies taken. The reference to a site visit by 'the sitting' was unexplained, and the Respondent failed to avail any notice of the visit or minutes. Such conduct breached Article 47, Sections 6 and 9 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act, the rules of natural justice and the right to fair hearing.
Illegality and ultra vires action
The Minister acted illegally and ultra vires by determining ownership of parcels 4218, 3458 and 6559, which were not subject of the appeal before him, and by relying on unnamed witnesses.
The appeal to the Minister concerned only plot number 4190 Giithu Adjudication Area, yet the Minister made proclamations over three other parcels and awarded them to the Interested Party who had filed no appeal. Section 29 of the Land Adjudication Act clothed the Minister with power to hear an appeal concerning particular designated parcels only. He also drew inferences from unidentified witnesses, rendering the decision illegal, unlawful and irrational.
Violation of fundamental rights
The applicant's rights to fair administrative action, fair hearing, due process and equal protection under the Constitution were breached.
The applicant was entitled to rights under Articles 47, 25(c), 50(1), 10(2) and 27(1) of the Constitution. The 1st Respondent, enjoined by Article 10(1) to comply with national values, flouted those commands by conducting proceedings and a site visit without notice to or involvement of the applicant, subjecting her to a charade in the name of a hearing.
Legal principles established
#- Fair administrative action requires efficiency, reasonableness, proportionality, lawfulness and procedural fairness, including notice and hearing (audi alteram partem).
- A decision-maker exceeds jurisdiction by determining matters not placed before it on appeal, and such action is ultra vires and illegal.
- Judicial review relief requires demonstration of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated 14.10.2025 be and is hereby allowed
- 2.The impugned decision of the 1st Respondent made on the 17.07.2025 vide appeal to Minister number 217 of 2024 be and is hereby quashed
- 3.The Appeal vide 217 of 2024 in respect of plot number 4190 – Giithu Adjudication Area be and is hereby remitted to hearing and determination by the Cabinet Secretary or her duly appointed Deputy County Commissioner, other than the Deputy County Commissioner – Tigania Central who rendered the impugned decision
- 4.The hearing and determination of the appeal to the Minister [subject to clause iii hereof] shall be undertaken on priority basis
- 5.Costs of the suit/proceedings be and are hereby awarded the Exparte Applicant
- 6.The costs in terms of clause [v] shall be agreed upon and in default be taxed in the conventional manner
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 47 of the Constitution, 2010; Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act, Chapter 26 Laws of Kenya; Order 53 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
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 Application dated 14.10.2025 be and is hereby allowed.
The impugned decision of the 1st Respondent made on the 17.07.2025 vide appeal to Minister number 217 of 2024 be and is hereby quashed.
The Appeal vide 217 of 2024 in respect of plot number 4190 – Giithu Adjudication Area be and is hereby remitted to hearing and determination by the Cabinet Secretary or her duly appointed Deputy County Commissioner, other than the Deputy County Commissioner – Tigania Central who rendered the impugned decision.
Due process is a fundamental aspect of the rule of law. Due process is the right to a fair hearing.
I am afraid that the manner in which the first Respondent undertook his/her statutory mandate ran afoul the dictates of the rule of the natural justice and the right to fair hearing.
Issues in the judgment
#The relief sought refers to a decision 'delivered on 17/07/20215', an apparent typographical error for 17/07/2025, which the judgment elsewhere uses consistently.
The quoted passage from Gikenyi v County Government of Nakuru appears truncated and garbled ('The right to fair administrative action as enshrined under Article 47 of eficient, lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair.').
The application also sought certiorari over parcels 4218, 3458 and 6559, yet the court found the appeal before the Minister concerned only plot 4190; the quashing order nonetheless covers the whole decision in Minister's appeal No. 217 of 2024.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Deputy County Commissioner Tigania Central & 3 others; Gatebia (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E015 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1303 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Judicial Review Application dated 14.10.2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1303/eng@2026-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.