Mangeli & another v National Land Commission & 3 others (Miscellaneous Application 16 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 3755 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court quashed the National Land Commission's revocation of the applicants' land titles because the NLC gave only one day's notice and acted outside its statutory five-year deadline.
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 1st Respondent (NLC) violated the rules of natural justice, specifically the audi alteram partem rule, by providing insufficient notice for the review hearing.
- 2.Whether the NLC's actions were undertaken within the five-year statutory window prescribed by Section 14(1) of the National Land Commission Act.
- 3.Whether the revocation of the titles constituted an unlawful infringement of the Applicants' right to property under Article 40.
Key legal issues
#Whether the one-day notice for the NLC review hearing breached natural justice and fair administrative action.
Yes. The advertisement of 26/09/2018 for a hearing on 27/09/2018 was grossly insufficient and condemned the Applicants unheard, breaching Article 50(1), Article 47 and Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
The Court accepted that the Applicants were not notified of the complaint against them nor given an opportunity to respond. The Regulations required thirty days' notice, and an advert placed the day before a hearing was a mockery of the right to be heard. Following Pastoli and the ex-parte Robert Gichuru decision, procedural impropriety of this magnitude renders the decision a nullity, even if the land was irregularly acquired.
Whether the NLC acted within its jurisdiction given the five-year limitation in Section 14(1) of the National Land Commission Act.
No. The review proceedings occurred after the five-year window (2012-2017) lapsed, so the decision was made without jurisdiction.
Section 14(1) requires review of grants or dispositions of public land within five years of the Act's commencement. Acting in 2018/2019 without legislative extension placed the Commission outside its statutory mandate, rendering the proceedings ultra vires and functus officio, consistent with the Supreme Court's Advisory Opinion No. 2 of 2014 on the temporal limits of the Commission.
Whether the revocation infringed the Applicants' right to property under Article 40.
The revocation process violated Articles 40 and 47; however, the Court did not validate the Applicants' titles, as the legality of the original allocation remains unresolved.
The Court held that even where land may have been grabbed, the NLC cannot use illegal or unconstitutional means to correct a past illegality. Certiorari and prohibition are public law remedies available to persons whose legally recognized interests are infringed. Yet the Court clarified it was not confirming the validity of the titles, only quashing the defective process.
Legal principles established
#- A decision made by a public authority without or in excess of jurisdiction, or in breach of the rules of natural justice, is null and void and liable to be quashed.
- A notice that does not allow a party sufficient time to prepare and respond is no notice at all; a one-day notice violates fair administrative action.
- The NLC's review mandate under Section 14 of the NLC Act is time-bound; action beyond the five-year window is without jurisdiction.
Court orders
#- 1.An Order of Certiorari quashing the 1st Respondent's determination dated 7/02/2019 and the subsequent Gazette Notice of 1/03/2019 regarding the suit properties.
- 2.An Order of Prohibition precluding the Respondents from implementing the said revocation.
- 3.Costs awarded to the Applicants, to be borne by the 1st Respondent.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- High Court's supervisory and judicial review jurisdiction over exercise of statutory power by a public body, pursuant to leave granted on 08/04/2019
Relief refused
#A general prohibition preventing the Respondents from questioning the legality of the process through which the suit property was allocated to the Applicants.
The Court only dealt with the process of revocation; the legality of the original allocation remains unresolved and the Respondent had jurisdiction to review it.
Costs
Costs are awarded to the Applicants, to be borne by the 1st Respondent.
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.
An Order of Certiorari is hereby issued to quashing the 1st Respondent’s determination dated 7/02/2019 and the subsequent Gazette Notice of 1/03/2019 regarding the suit properties.
An Order of Prohibition is issued precluding the Respondents from implementing the said revocation.
Any decision which is arrived at by a public authority or body in excess of or without jurisdiction and/or in breach of the rules of natural justice is null and void.
Even if the land was grabbed as alleged the NLC cannot use illegal or unconstitutional means to correct a past illegality. Two wrongs do not make a right.
The NLC’s shortcut was a bridge to nowhere.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date contradictions: the further affidavit is described as sworn on 3/02/2026 but refers to a previous affidavit of 23/04/2026, a date after the hearing notice events and near the judgment date.
Conflicting hearing dates: paragraph 5 states the hearing was conducted on 27th and 28th September 2019, while paragraph 10 states the notice was published 26/09/2018 and the hearing commenced on 27/09/2018.
Conflicting Gazette Notice dates: paragraph 4 states the decision was gazetted vide a gazette notice dated 1/03/2019, while the 1st Respondent's affidavit refers to the Kenya Gazette Vol. CXXI-No. 27 dated 1/03/2018.
Paragraph 8 refers to an arrest and charge in Kikuyu Law Court on 27/03/2009, which predates the events in issue and appears to be a typographical error.
Paragraph 33 states the Respondent 'had jurisdiction to review and cancel the allocation' while paragraph 36 finds the decision was made without jurisdiction after lapse of the five-year window.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mangeli & another v National Land Commission & 3 others (Miscellaneous Application 16 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 3755 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Judicial Review Application (Notice of Motion dated 23/04/2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3755/eng@2026-06-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.