Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedJR No. 4 of 2018

Republic v National Land Commission & 12 others; M/S Molerise Innovative Services Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 4 of 2018) [2026] KEELC 1744 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
23 March 2026
EWEmmanuel M. Washe
5,967 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~24 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court in Eldoret cancelled the National Land Commission's decision taking away Molerise's land, ruling the Commission acted after its legal review powers had expired.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Ex-parte Applicant, Molerise Innovative Services Limited, sought an order of certiorari to quash the National Land Commission's determination dated 15.03.2018, which cancelled its letter of allotment over L.R. No. Eldoret Municipality Block 14/2191 and directed the Chief Land Registrar to issue titles to interested parties. The Applicant argued that the Commission lacked jurisdiction, its five-year review power under Section 14(1) of the National Land Commission Act having lapsed on 02.05.2017, that it was not given a fair hearing, and that the matter usurped the Environment and Land Court's jurisdiction. The Respondents maintained that the Commission had jurisdiction under Article 68(c)(v) of the Constitution and Section 14 of the National Land Commission Act, that the Applicant was heard, and that JR was misconceived since the dispute concerned land ownership. The court, guided by the Municipal Council of Mombasa case on the process-focused nature of judicial review, framed six issues. It found that the complaint before the Commission was by the 7th Respondent and other house owners against the 4th Respondent, not against the Applicant; that the five-year review window expired on 02.05.2017, rendering the 2018 determination a nullity for want of jurisdiction; that no Notice of Review under Section 14(3) was served and attendance could not confer jurisdiction; and that the Commission failed to consider these crucial matters. The JR was allowed: certiorari issued quashing the proceedings and recommendations of the determination, with costs to the Applicant payable by the 1st to 13th Respondents jointly and severally.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Was there a complaint filed against the letter of allotment issued to the Ex-parte Applicant?
  2. 2.Was there any resolution by the 1st Respondent to review the Ex-parte Applicant's disposition and if yes, was the procedure followed?
  3. 3.Was the Ex-parte Applicant given a fair hearing by the 1st Respondent before the determination pronounced on 15.03.2018?
  4. 4.Did the 1st Respondent take into consideration the relevant issues in making its determination pronounced on 15.03.2018?
  5. 5.Is the present JR merited or not?
  6. 6.Who bears the costs of the present JR?

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the determination of 15.03.2018 was premised on a complaint against the Ex-parte Applicant

Holding

No - the complaint before the NLC was by the 7th Respondent and other house owners against the 4th Respondent, not against the Ex-parte Applicant.

Reasoning

The court examined the background section of the determination itself, which recorded a complaint by Dr. Oliver Langat Ptallah and others about demolition of their houses by the County Government. The 1st Respondent's own grounds of opposition never referred to any complaint against the Ex-parte Applicant. The allegations by the 7th and 13th Respondents that the 4th Respondent had lodged a complaint against the Ex-parte Applicant were therefore erroneous and not factual.

p. 10
02

Whether the NLC had jurisdiction to review the Ex-parte Applicant's disposition on 15.03.2018

Holding

No - the five-year period under Section 14(1) of the National Land Commission Act expired on 02.05.2017, before the determination.

Reasoning

Section 14(1) of the National Land Commission Act limited the Commission's review power to five years from commencement of the Act. The court computed the period as 02.05.2012 to 02.05.2017. The 1st Respondent was under a duty under Section 107 of the Evidence Act to prove the date of service of a Notice of Review but produced only the determination dated 15.03.2018, which fell outside the statutory window. The determination was therefore made without jurisdiction and was a nullity ab initio.

p. 11
03

Whether the Ex-parte Applicant received a fair hearing before the NLC

Holding

No - the Applicant attended the hearing of a complaint by others as an interested party, not a review of its own disposition, and no Notice of Review under Section 14(3) was served.

Reasoning

The determination showed the Applicant attending as an interested party in the complaint by the 7th Respondent and house owners against the 4th Respondent. Section 14(3) required the Commission to give notice of review and an opportunity to appear and inspect documents to every interested person. No such Notice of Review was presented. Further, participation could not cure the want of jurisdiction since jurisdiction is founded on law, not the conduct of parties.

p. 13
04

Whether the NLC considered relevant matters in making its determination

Holding

No - the Commission failed to consider its own jurisdiction, the existence of a valid complaint against the Applicant, and service of a Notice of Review.

Reasoning

Flowing from the findings on the earlier issues, the Commission did not consider whether it possessed jurisdiction under Section 14(1), whether a valid complaint had been lodged against the Ex-parte Applicant initiating proceedings on its disposition, or whether a Notice of Review under Section 14(3) had been served. These were crucial statutory preconditions that the Commission was obliged to consider before determining the legality or propriety of the Applicant's disposition.

p. 13

Legal principles established

#
  • Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision.
  • The National Land Commission's five-year mandate under Section 14(1) of the National Land Commission Act to review grants and dispositions of public land ran from 02.05.2012 and lapsed on 02.05.2017.
  • Proceedings undertaken without statutory jurisdiction are null and void regardless of procedural compliance.
  • Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the conduct or submission of parties.
  • A party whose disposition is under review must be served with a Notice of Review and given an opportunity to appear and inspect documents.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Amended Notice of Motion dated 3rd April 2025 is merited
  2. 2.An order of certiorari issued quashing the proceedings undertaken by the 1st Respondent as regards the legality and/or propriety of the Ex-parte Applicant's disposition over L.R. No. Eldoret Municipality Block 14/2191 and/or the resultant recommendations issued in the determination pronounced on 15.03.2018
  3. 3.The Ex-parte Applicant is granted costs payable by the 1st to 13th Respondents jointly and severally

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

EW
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; decision impugned made under Article 68(c)(v) of the Constitution, 2010 as read with Section 14 of the National Land Commission Act, No. 5 of 2012

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.

These are the kind of questions a court hearing a matter by way of judicial review is concerned with and such court is not entitled to act as a Court of Appeal over the decider.
p. 7Scope of judicial review
the powers and/or jurisdiction to review all or any grant or disposition of public land by the 1st Respondent was to begin on 02.05.2012 and lapse on 02.05.2017.
p. 11Limitation of NLC review powers under Section 14(1)
In proceedings which are devoid of statutory jurisdiction, whatever procedure which is applied therein cannot cure the fatality of the entire exercise.
p. 11Jurisdiction as foundational
a court may not arrogate to itself jurisdiction through the craft of interpretation or by way of endeavours to discern or interpret the intentions of Parliament, where the legislation is clear and there is no ambiguity.
p. 13Jurisdiction founded on law, not party conduct (quoting Supreme Court)
An Order Of certiorari be and is hereby issued quashing The Proceedings Undertaken By The 1St Respondent as regards the Legality And/or Propriety Of The Ex-parte Applicant’s Disposition Over The Property Known As Lr.no. Eldoret Muncipality Block 14/2191 And/ or The Resultant Recommendations issued in the Determination Pronounced On The 15.03.2018.
p. 14Final orders - certiorari granted
The Ex-parte Applicant Is Granted The Costs Payable By The 1St To 13Th Respondents Jointly And Severally.
p. 14Costs order

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The introductory pleading refers to quashing a determination regularizing 'purported titles (12 in number) held by the Interested Parties', yet no party is listed as an interested party in the judgment; all opposing parties are styled Respondents.

minor

The judgment is delivered on 23 March 2026 but the case number is JR 4 of 2018 while the amended Notice of Motion is dated 03.04.2025, an unexplained chronological gap.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (3)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v National Land Commission & 12 others; M/S Molerise Innovative Services Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 4 of 2018) [2026] KEELC 1744 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). JR No. 4 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1744/eng@2026-03-23

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.