The court found that the impugned sections of the Land Adjudication Act, which assign dispute resolution functions to adjudication officers and the Minister, do not violate the Constitution. The court reasoned that the Constitution expressly recognizes alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and quasi-judicial bodies, and that administrative and quasi-judicial actions are subject to judicial review under articles 47 and 165(6) of the Constitution. The finality clauses in the Act do not preclude judicial review, as established in both Kenyan and comparative jurisprudence. The right to appeal is not absolute and must be provided for by statute or the Constitution. The requirement for consent from the Adjudication Officer before instituting court proceedings is a legitimate procedural safeguard to ensure the exhaustion of specialized mechanisms established by law. The court concluded that none of the challenged provisions infringe on the independence of the judiciary, access to justice, or the doctrine of separation of powers. Accordingly, the petition lacked merit and was dismissed.