Five Star Agencies Limited v National Land Commission (Environment and Land Case 445 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 3383 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered the National Land Commission's CEO to pay a landowner Ksh 909 million within 90 days, ending a 12-year wait.
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 Notice of Motion dated 3rd March 2025 seeking an order of mandamus against the officers of the National Land Commission is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether mandamus lies against the National Land Commission to enforce payment of the decretal sum
Yes. The National Land Commission Act does not provide for execution against the Commission, so Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act applies; the Secretary/CEO as accounting officer must pay upon service of the certificate of order.
The court found the Commission is a state organ under Article 260 though created under Article 253. Because the National Land Commission Act is silent on execution, the Government Proceedings Act procedure applies. The certificate of order was served on the CEO on 10th January 2025, and demand went unmet for close to 11 years. Objections about KENHA's failure to remit funds were matters for the hearing of the suit, raised too late, and the judgment remained valid and unexecuted.
Whether non-receipt of funds from the acquiring entity (KENHA) excuses non-payment
No. Such defences ought to have been raised at the hearing of the main suit and cannot resist execution of an unvacated judgment.
The respondent deponed that compulsory acquisition funds were the responsibility of KENHA, which never deposited funds for disbursement. The court held these were issues for the trial hearing, raised too late, and that the interest of justice favoured allowing the applicant to enjoy the fruits of a judgment outstanding for close to 12 years.
Legal principles established
#- Independent constitutional commissions are state organs and execution against them follows the Government Proceedings Act where their establishing statute is silent on execution
- The Secretary of the National Land Commission is the accounting officer responsible for payment of decrees against the Commission
- Excuses about funding or shifting liability to the acquiring entity cannot be raised after judgment as a means of resisting execution
Court orders
#- 1.An order of mandamus issued and directed to the Chief Executive Officer National Land Commission to pay the ex parte Applicant the decretal sum of Ksh 909,023,500/= together with interest accumulated from 24th November 2014 until payment in full within ninety (90) days of delivery of the ruling
- 2.Mention on 30th September 2026 to confirm compliance, failing which summons to issue to the Chairman National Land Commission and the Chief Executive Officer, National Land Commission to show cause why they should not be cited and punished for contempt of court
- 3.Costs to the Applicant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review/execution jurisdiction; Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act and Section 20 of the National Land Commission Act
Relief refused
#Immediate issuance of mandamus directed also to the Chairman of the National Land Commission
The court directed mandamus only to the Chief Executive Officer, the accounting officer, though contempt summons may issue to the Chairman on non-compliance
Costs
The costs shall be to the Applicant.
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.
I find merit in the application and do grant it as prayed.
An order of mandamus is hereby issued and directed to the Chief Executive Oficer National Land Commission to pay the ex parte Applicant herein the decretal sum of Ksh 909,023,500/= together with the interest accumulated from 24th November 2014 until the payment in full within ninety (90) days of the delivery of this ruling.
The costs shall be to the Applicant.
I find that this are issues the Court ought to have been canvassed at the hearing of the suit and as such are being raised too late after judgement had been rendered.
The execution procedure therefore falls within the one provided for in Section 21 of the Government proceedings Act
Issues in the judgment
#Suit property parcel number inconsistently stated - prayer refers to LR 209/9227 while the opening paragraph refers to LR 209/9727
Chronology inconsistency: the application is dated 3rd March 2025 but the respondent's replying affidavit is sworn on 17th December 2025 and the applicant's further affidavit is dated 9th February 2026, while submissions are dated April 2025
The court's reasoning states the judgment was delivered on 24th November 2014 yet elsewhere describes the demand as unmet 'for a period of close to 11 years' and the judgment as 'outstanding for close to 12 years now'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Five Star Agencies Limited v National Land Commission (Environment and Land Case 445 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 3383 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). JR 44/2012 (as referenced); Notice of Motion dated 3rd March 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3383/eng@2026-06-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.