Republic v National Land Commission & 2 others;Gaski Investments Limited (Interested Party) Ex parte George Gathuki Nganga [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Thika
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Hon. Justice L. Gacheru
Judgment Date
October 01, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Republic v National Land Commission & 2 others; Gaski Investments Limited ex parte George Gathuki Nganga [2020] eKLR, focusing on key legal findings and implications for property rights.


Case Brief: Republic v National Land Commission & 2 others;Gaski Investments Limited (Interested Party) Ex parte George Gathuki Nganga [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Republic v. National Land Commission & Others
- Case Number: ELC CASE NO.31 OF 2018 (FORMERLY NRB MISC 152 OF 2018)
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Thika
- Date Delivered: 1st October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Hon. Justice L. Gacheru
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court had to resolve the following legal issues:
a) Whether the Ex parte Applicant met the threshold for granting Judicial Review Orders of Certiorari and Prohibition.
b) If so, whether the application dated 16th May 2019 was merited.
c) Who is entitled to costs of these proceedings?

3. Facts of the Case:
The Ex parte Applicant, George Gathuki Nganga, sought Judicial Review against the National Land Commission, the Registrar of Titles, and the Chief Land Registrar. The dispute arose over the ownership of the property Thika Municipality Block 6/1062. The Ex parte Applicant claimed to have been the legitimate owner, having received a letter of allotment from the government in 1992 and subsequently registered the lease in 2012. He contended that his title was wrongfully revoked by the National Land Commission on 11th July 2018, which declared that his registration was obtained through deceit and misrepresentation. The Interested Party, Gaski Investments Limited, was alleged to have colluded with officials to create fraudulent parallel titles, leading to the contested ownership.

4. Procedural History:
The Ex parte Applicant filed a Judicial Review Application on 16th May 2019, seeking to quash the National Land Commission's decision and to reinstate his title. The Interested Party filed a Replying Affidavit contesting the application, arguing that the Ex parte Applicant's title was irregularly issued. The 1st Respondent, through its acting Director, also contested the application, asserting that the Commission had the authority to review titles at the time of the decision. The matter was heard, and the court considered submissions from all parties.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court referenced the National Land Commission Act, 2012, particularly Section 14, which outlines the Commission's mandate to review land grants within five years of the Act's commencement. The court also considered principles from previous cases regarding Judicial Review, emphasizing that the focus is on the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself.

- Case Law: The court cited the case of Municipal Council of Mombasa v. Republic Umoja Consultants Ltd, which established that the court's role in Judicial Review is to assess whether the decision-making body had the jurisdiction and whether the affected parties were afforded a fair hearing. The court also referenced Pastoli v. Kabale District Local Government, which defined the grounds for Judicial Review, including illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.

- Application: The court found that the National Land Commission had exceeded its jurisdiction by making a decision after its mandate had expired on 1st May 2017. The court held that the letter dated 11th July 2018 did not constitute a formal decision but rather communicated findings from an investigation. As such, the Ex parte Applicant was not denied a fair hearing, and the application for Judicial Review was dismissed.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled against the Ex parte Applicant, concluding that he did not meet the necessary threshold for the Judicial Review Orders sought. The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the 1st Respondent and the Interested Party.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the judgment.

8. Summary:
The case underscores the importance of jurisdiction in administrative actions and the adherence to procedural fairness in decision-making processes. The ruling clarified that the National Land Commission's powers to review land grants were limited to a five-year window, and any actions taken beyond that were deemed ultra vires. The decision reinforces the legal principle that the process leading to a decision is as critical as the decision itself, impacting future cases involving land disputes and administrative reviews in Kenya.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Republic-v-National-Land-Commission--2-others-Gaski-Investments-Limited-Interested-Party-Ex-parte-George-Gathuki-Nganga-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1152_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries