SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Republic v National Land Commission; Kiambu County Government (Interested Party); Rimberia (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application 8 of 2019) [2022] KEELC 4909 (KLR) (20 September 2022) (Judgment)

[2022] KEELC 4909 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
4909
Citation
[2022] KEELC 4909 (KLR)
Decided
20 September 2022
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeJudicial ReviewPostureEx parte applicant seeks to quash a decision of the National Land Commission and prohibit the respondent from recommending revocation of the applicant's title.CoramBM EBOSO
The court finds the National Land Commission acted outside its statutory mandate and the impugned decision is quashed.

Facts

The ex parte applicant, Arthur Kirimi Rimberia, is the registered proprietor of land parcel Juja/Kiaura Block 2/316. The National Land Commission (respondent) directed the Chief Land Registrar to revoke the applicant's title, claiming the land was reserved as a public utility plot. The applicant contends the land is private.

Issues

  • Whether the National Land Commission had jurisdiction to render the impugned decision.

Reasoning

The court agrees with the ex parte applicant that the suit property has never been public land, and the Commission did not establish that the property previously existed as public land. The decision was made after the five-year review period had lapsed.

Outcome

The impugned decision is quashed.

Orders

  • The impugned decision is quashed.
  • Any party challenging the legality of the applicant's title can do so through an ordinary civil suit.

Remedies

  • The ex parte applicant is granted the order sought in prayer (a) only.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • National Land Commission Act
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case