Republic v Attorney General & 3 others Ex Parties;Fredrick Wekesa Machasio & another Alexander Mukhwana Machasio & 8 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Bungoma
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Boaz N. Olao
Judgment Date
October 15, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the 2020 eKLR case summary of Republic v Attorney General & Others, involving Fredrick Wekesa Machasio and Alexander Mukhwana Machasio, highlighting key judgments and implications.

Case Brief: Republic v Attorney General & 3 others Ex Parties;Fredrick Wekesa Machasio & another Alexander Mukhwana Machasio & 8 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Republic v. The Attorney General & Others
- Case Number: Judicial Review No. 1 of 2020
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Bungoma
- Date Delivered: 15th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Boaz N. Olao
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues before the court include:
- Whether the cancellation of registration of interests in title No. NDIVISI/MUCHI/2111 was carried out in a manner that infringed upon the Applicants' property rights and was procedurally fair.
- Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant the orders sought by the Applicants, including certiorari to quash the cancellation order and mandamus to compel the registration of sub-divisions of the suit land.

3. Facts of the Case:
The Applicants, Fredrick Wekesa Machasio and Patrick Wanjala Machasio, filed a judicial review application after the Assistant County Commissioner Webuye issued a cancellation order regarding title No. NDIVISI/MUCHI/2111, which had been registered in the name of their father, Gabriel Mumela Machasio. The Applicants had obtained consent to subdivide the suit land into three parcels, which were subsequently issued titles. However, the Assistant County Commissioner canceled these titles without notifying the Applicants or their father, citing disputes among family members regarding the land's division.

4. Procedural History:
The Applicants sought judicial review after obtaining leave from the court on 29th June 2020. They filed their application on 21st July 2020, seeking to quash the cancellation order and compel the registration of the sub-divided parcels. The Interested Parties, who were other siblings of the Applicants, were allowed to join the proceedings. The case progressed through written submissions from both sides.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered relevant statutes, including Article 40 of the Constitution, which protects property rights, and Articles 47 and 50, which pertain to fair administrative action and the right to a fair hearing. The Judicial Review Act and the Fair Administrative Action Act were also relevant in evaluating the legality of the cancellation process.
- Case Law: The court referenced precedents such as *Municipal Council of Mombasa v. Republic & Umoja Consultants Ltd* and *Commissioner of Lands v. Kunste Hotel Ltd*, which emphasize that judicial review focuses on the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself. Additionally, *Pastoli v. Kabale District Government Council* outlined the grounds for judicial review, including illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.
- Application: The court found that the cancellation of the titles lacked procedural fairness as the Applicants were not given an opportunity to be heard, violating their rights under the Constitution. However, the court concluded that judicial review was not the appropriate forum to resolve the underlying ownership dispute of the land, suggesting that such matters should be settled in a civil suit.

6. Conclusion:
The court dismissed the Applicants' application for judicial review, concluding that the remedy of certiorari was not the most efficacious means to resolve the dispute over the land. The court indicated that the matter should be addressed through civil litigation, and no orders for costs were issued, reflecting the familial nature of the dispute.

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

8. Summary:
The court ruled against the Applicants in their quest to quash the cancellation of land titles and compel registration of subdivisions, emphasizing that the judicial review process is not suited for determining ownership disputes. The decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness in administrative actions while also delineating the boundaries of judicial review in property disputes, suggesting that such matters are better suited for civil court adjudication.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Republic-v-Attorney-General--3-others-Ex-Parties-Fredrick-Wekesa-Machasio--another-Alexander-Mukhwana-Machasio--8-others-Interested-Parties-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2118_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries