Republic National Land Commission & another Ex Parte Joseph Mungai Gichuru & another [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
E.O. Obaga
Judgment Date
October 08, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the Republic National Land Commission & another Ex Parte Joseph Mungai Gichuru & another [2020] eKLR case summary. Discover key insights and legal implications from this significant ruling.

Case Brief: Republic National Land Commission & another Ex Parte Joseph Mungai Gichuru & another [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Republic v. The National Land Commission & 2 Others
- Case Number: ELC JR 5 of 2019
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Milimani, Nairobi
- Date Delivered: October 8, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): E.O. Obaga
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court must resolve the following legal issues:
- Did the National Land Commission have jurisdiction to review the grants held by the Ex-Parte Applicants?
- Were the Ex-Parte Applicants afforded an opportunity to be heard before the decision was made by the National Land Commission?
- Were the Ex-Parte Applicants innocent purchasers for value without notice of any defect in the title?

3. Facts of the Case:
The Ex-Parte Applicants, Joseph Mungai Gichuru and Lucy Wairimu, are a couple jointly registered as owners of two plots (LR Nos 15868/1 and 2) that were originally part of a larger one-acre plot. After purchasing the land, they subdivided it and later sought to change its use from a nursery school to residential plots. In 2016, the National Land Commission initiated a review of their grants based on complaints from the Muthaiga North Residents Association, asserting that the land had been reserved for a public nursery. The Commission concluded that the grants were acquired illegally and recommended revocation, prompting the Ex-Parte Applicants to file a constitutional petition, which was dismissed. Subsequently, they sought judicial review to quash the Commission's decision.

4. Procedural History:
The Ex-Parte Applicants initially filed constitutional petition No. 530 of 2016 against the National Land Commission and others, which was dismissed by Justice Mativo on May 12, 2017. They then sought leave for a judicial review application on February 18, 2019, which was granted on April 17, 2019. They filed a notice of motion on April 26, 2019, seeking to quash the Commission's decision and prohibit the Chief Land Registrar from acting on it. The Respondents did not respond, but the interested party opposed the motion.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered Section 14(1) of the National Land Commission Act, which grants the Commission the authority to review grants of public land to establish their legality. The rules of natural justice also require that parties be afforded an opportunity to be heard before decisions are made.
- Case Law:
The court referenced previous rulings, including Republic v. National Land Commission Ex-Parte Cecilia Chepkoech Leting & 3 Others (2016) and Republic v. Chairman & Members of National Land Commission, Ex-parte Turf Developers Ltd (2016), to establish the Commission's jurisdiction and the necessity of due process.
- Application:
The court found that the National Land Commission had jurisdiction to review the grants because the land had previously been public land. It ruled that the Ex-Parte Applicants were afforded an opportunity to be heard, as evidenced by their participation in the inquiry. Furthermore, the Ex-Parte Applicants could not claim to be innocent purchasers, as they had knowledge of the land's reservation for a nursery school.

6. Conclusion:
The court dismissed the Ex-Parte Applicants' motion, affirming that the National Land Commission acted within its jurisdiction and that the Applicants were not innocent purchasers. The ruling underscores the importance of due diligence in property transactions and the capacity of regulatory bodies to review land grants.

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

8. Summary:
The court ruled against the Ex-Parte Applicants, affirming the National Land Commission's authority to review land grants when public interest is at stake. This case highlights the complexities of land ownership in Kenya, particularly regarding prior reservations and the responsibilities of purchasers to verify the status of land before acquisition. The decision reinforces the legal framework governing land use and the rights of regulatory bodies to enforce compliance with land use policies.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Republic-National-Land-Commission--another-Ex-Parte-Joseph-Mungai-Gichuru--another-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1895_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries