Republic v National Land Commission & Chief Land Registrar [2016] KEHC 572 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. 53  OF 2016

IN THE MATER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDERS OF CERTIORARI

AND

IN THE MATTER OF  ARTICLES  2,10. 19. 20,21,22,23,40,47,64(B), 67  OF THE  CONSTITUTION  OF KENYA 2010

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 8 AND 9 OF  THE  LAW REFORM ACT  CAP  26 LAWS OF  KENYA  AND IN THE MATTER  OF ORDER  53  OF THE CIVIL  PROCEDURES RULES

AND

IN THE MATTER  OF FAIR  ADMINISTRATIVE  ACTION ACT, 2015 SECTIONS  7,8,9,10 AND  11

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION ACT NO.  5 OF 2012

REPUBLIC   ………………......................................................................APPLICANT

VERSUS

1. THE NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION}

2.   CHIEF LANDREGISTRAR…………………...........……….........RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

1. On  10th February  2016, Honourable Korir  J granted  to the exparte applicant  herein Joseph  Kariuki  Iregi  leave to institute   Judicial Review  proceedings  seeking for  judicial review orders of  Certiorari  and  Prohibition  against the  respondent,   the National Land  Commission.

2. The said order of leave also directed that the substantive notice of motion be filed within 14 days from 10th February 2016.

3. On  23rd  February 2016  the exparte  applicant  filed the substantive  notice of motion  which is  dated  22nd   February 2016  seeking for  the following Judicial  Review orders:

i. That an order  of certiorari  to  remove  to this Honourable court  for the purposes  of quashing  and to quash the decision  of the respondent   to revoke  titles  deeds over Nairobi/Block 82/8866, Nairobi /Block  82/8867 and Nairobi/Block  82/8868;

ii. An order  of prohibition  to issue  directed to the National  Lands Commission  from cancelling, revoking   and or  in any  manner  unlawfully interfering  with the applicant’s  properties  being title numbers Nairobi/Block 82/8866, Nairobi /Block  82/8867 and Nairobi/Block  82/8868 respectively.

4. The application is grounded upon  the facts  set out  in the statutory statement  and verifying   affidavit  accompanying  the application  for leave  and  a supporting  affidavit  sworn by the exparte  applicant  Joseph Kariuki Ireri  on 22nd  January  2016.

5. The exparte applicant’s case is that he is the registered  proprietor of leasehold interest in Nairobi/Block 82/8866, Nairobi /Block  82/8867 and Nairobi/Block  82/8868 originally  known  as  Nairobi Bloc 82/4292 and that he  was initially   a tenant  in common  with  Joseph Kangethe  Nyaga vide a  certificate of lease  issued on  19th July  1995.  That on  26th October  1999 the said Joseph  Kangethe Nganga  transferred  his leasehold  interest  in the said  original title to  the exparte applicant.

6. That the exparte applicant intended to develop the said plot  in  2008 hence he  sought for development approvals  from the Chief Engineer Ministry of Roads  as  the plot  was  bordering  Outering  Road.  He  also sought for approval  from Kenya Power & Lighting   since  the  said plot  also  bordered  Kenya  Power & Lighting company   way leave.

7. That  the exparte applicant received  communication of no objection from the Chief  Engineer  Roads  on 4th July  2008 and  from Kenya  Power& Lighting Company on 5th September 2008 respectively.

8. That on  26th September  2008  the then  City  Council of Nairobi  issued the  exparte applicant  with a Bill  of Plans  Inspection  fee  and the said  building plans  were approved  by the Director  of City Planning  on 5th June  2009.  That the applicant then  applied for  subdivision of the original  title   into three portions and  on 9th June  2010 he   was issued  with a provisional approval by Karuri F.G.  on behalf of the then Commissioner  of Lands.

9. That later on  19th February   2010 the exparte applicant submitted  an application for  development  permission  to the then  City Council  of Nairobi  through Dr George  N. Njuguna  the Physical Planner and that the exparte applicant was issued  with a notification of approval of development permission  over  subdivision  of the original title  No. Nairobi Block/4292.

10. That on 24th September  2010 the Town Clerk for the then City Council  of Nairobi  wrote no objection to approval for subdivision to the  Commissioner  of Lands  and on  15th October  2010  the applicant   was issued with a subdivision certificate by the Director of City Planning and Architecture.  That it was upon issue of certificate of subdivision that the  exparte applicant was  issued with  a leases for  the three parcels named  herein.

11. That the exparte applicant then fully  developed  the said plots  which developments  now house  several tenants   including  a supermarket, banking  institution and  other establishments.

12. That vide gazette notice No. 307/11/1/2016 the Secretary/CEO of the National Land Commission purportedly revoked title numbers subject of these proceedings   claiming   jurisdiction under the powers of the Commission to review titles.

13. That the National Land Commission   has no power to review or revoke   titles to private land but only to public land as stipulated in Section 14(1) of the National Land Commission   Act.  That  the National Land Commission    has breached the  Rules of natural justice, has acted  ultra vires  and  that it has acted with malice since  it never accorded  the exparte  applicant  any opportunity  to appear before  it to  inspect   documents  of ownership   prior to the making of the decision to revoke  the titles  to the three  parcels  of land.

14. That in view of the above, the  respondent  unilaterally  violated the  applicant’s rights   under the  Constitution   to own  and  enjoy   property  and that  the respondent’s   action amounts to unfair  administrative  action.

15. The exparte applicant therefore urged the court of grant the prayers sought.

16. As  there  was no appearance  and  or  reply   to these  proceedings, the  applicant  urged the application orally  before  me on  7th November 2016  with Miss  Wangari  relying on her client’s  pleadings, affidavits   and  written submissions  filed in  court on  15th March  2016.

17. Counsel for the exparte applicant framed one issue for determination which is, whether the 1st respondent lawfully placed the revoked title numbers being the applicant’s property.

18. I shall in considering that single issue combines the written submissions with counsel’s oral submissions.

19. The exparte  applicant  through his advocate  submitted that  the parcels   of land in  question  being   private land, the National Land  Commission  had no  jurisdiction   to review   titles    to the said parcels   and or revoke  them, and that the  action of  reviewing and  revoking  the said  titles  is in  violation  of and  ultra vires Sections   62  and  67 of the Constitution  which   make  a clear  distinction  between private and public  land  and the   extent  of the powers  of the National Land  Commission.  It was   further   submitted that the decision of the National Land Commission was tainted with illegality.

20. It  was also submitted   that  prior to  review  and revocation  of the said titles, the  applicant  was never  accorded  an opportunity  to be heard  contrary to the  provisions  of Article  47(2)  of  the Constitution.  Further, that no  reasons  for the decision  to revoke  the titles   was  ever given  to the applicant.

21. Reliance was placed on the case of Pashito Holdings  & Another  v Ndungu & 2 Others [1997] e KLR  where the  Court of Appeal  held that  the  rule  of audi alterum  patem is  a rule of natural justice  and an indispensable   requirement  of justice   that the party  who made  the decision  shall hear  both sides, giving   each an  opportunity of  hearing  what is  urged  against him.

22. Further reliance was placed on Re Bivac International SA (Bureau veritas) [2005] 2 EA  where it    was  held that  the right  to be heard  is an important   cornerstone  of any legal  structure.

23. The  applicant  further submitted that the  review  and revocation   of his titles  to land  without  according  him an opportunity  to be heard  was in violation  of his  constitutional  right to  property  and  to be  protected  from arbitrary  deprivation of  property that he lawfully  owns, as stipulated   in Article  40 of the Constitution.

24. According   to the applicant,   sanctity  of title  is protected  under  the  Constitution and Section  26 of  the Land  Registration  Act  and   that the applicant   having  legally  acquired the lands in  question  and proceeded to develop  the parcels, no person or body or  authority had the mandate  to deprive him of those  titles of  ownership and  occupation other than  through  constitutional means  which include  compulsory  acquisition with compensation at  hand;  reversion of leasehold  interest  to the Government    after expiry  of the lease; transfer  or; surrender  of  the leases, as  stipulated  in Section  9 ( c  )  of the  Land  Act; or where  the leases  were acquired  illegally or through  fraud or misrepresentation  which he  contended, was not the  case here.

25. The applicant  submitted that what  he is  challenging  is the process  through which  the  review  and  revocation of his titles was carried out leading  to an  illegal  decision, and not the  merits of that decision, as   was  held in  various  decisions including  Commissioner of Lands v Hotel  Kunste Ltd CA  234 of  1995; Sanghani  Investments  Ltd V  Officer In Charge Nairobi Remand  & Allocation  Prison  [2007] 1EA  354;  Ezekiel  Musango  Mutisya  v National Land Commission & 6  Others  [2014]  e KLR; Municipal  Council  of Mombasa  Vs Republic  & Umoja Consultants Ltd CA 185/2001; JR334/2014   Republic  Vs National Land Commission exparte  Krystalline  Salt  Ltd  [2015] e KLR  and in  the latter case, it  was  submitted that the  court granted  Judicial Review   orders  of certiorari  on the grounds  that the respondent  acted in  excess  of its jurisdiction  when it   ordered for  excision  of the portion of  the applicant’s  land and  held that  the respondent  acted without  jurisdiction; and  that  it had breached  the Rules  of natural justice  by failing  to accord  the applicant  a hearing  before making   the decision.

26. Further  reliance was placed on Kuriki  Greens Ltd Vs Registrar  of  Titles [2011] eKLR where the  petitioner’s titles  were revoked  through  a Kenya  Gazette  Notice.  Honourable Musinga J ( as he then  was ) held  that the nullification of the petitioner’s titles was unconstitutional, null and  void.

27. The applicant  also relied on  Isaac Gathungu Wanjohi  & Another V Attorney General  & Others[2012] e KLRwhere Majanja J declared a Gazette Notice that nullified the petitioner’s  title as  null and  void  because the decision   had been made without  the requisite  jurisdiction.  It was submitted that a similar  decision  was  reached  by the court  in Republic  vs  Land Registrar, Kakamega District & Another exparte Kito  Pharmaceuticals   & 2 Others [2013] e KLR.

28. On the purview of Judicial  Review, reliance   was placed on the decision by Lord Diplock in  Council  of Civil  Services  Union V Minister  for  Civil Service[1985] A.C 374.

29. It  was further submitted that the Chief Land Registrar’s  position in this suit   would be to  correct  the  records  and remove  the revocation against  each of the titles to  reflect  this court’s  orders  in line with the Land Registration Act, 2012.

30. Relying on Republic  Vs  Institute  of CPA of Kenya  Exparte Vipochandra  Bhatt T/a Bhatt & Company  Nairobi HCMA 285/2006, counsel for the exparte applicant submitted that  the manner  in which the  respondent  acted  was  irrational, capricious  and arbitrary and  in bad faith.  The applicant’s counsel therefore prayed for the orders sought in the Notice of Motion with costs.

Determination

31. I have  carefully  considered  the notice  of motion dated  22nd  February 2016 and the supporting statutory  statement, verifying affidavit, supporting  affidavit  and the exhibits  annexed thereto.

32. I have also  considered  the applicant’s counsel’s written  submissions  which  were fully  adopted   during  the oral hearing  as arguments  in support of the notice  of motion.

33. I have given equal consideration to the Constitutional, statutory and case law cited in support of the Judicial Review proceedings.

34. In my humble   view, the issues for determination fall in the following categories.

1) Whether the respondent National Land Commission had the jurisdiction to review title to land which is private land.

2) Whether  the  1st respondent  National  Land Commission acted  within the law and   Constitutional  confines  when it  reviewed  and revoked  the subject  titles.

3) Whether the Judicial Review orders sought are available to the exparte applicant.

4) What orders should this court make.

5) Who  should  bear  costs of these  Judicial Review  proceedings?

35.  Shall essentially determine these issues together. On the  first issue,  the  commencement  point is  that the National  Land Commission is  an independent  constitutional  commission established  under Article 67  of the Constitution.

36. The  same Article  sets out  the functions  of the National  Land Commission, among  other functions  vested  in the Commission by the National  Land Commission Act, the Land  Act,  the Land Registration Act, the Environment   and Land Court  Act,  among other  pieces of legislation as stipulated  and envisaged under Article  67(3)  of  the Constitution.

37. The  key function that is material to these  proceedings  is the function  stipulated in Article  68 (b) (v)  of the Constitution which relates  to the  review  of all  grants or  disposition of public  land   to establish  their  propriety or legality.  That same function is to be found in Section 14 of the National Land  Commission Act.

38. According to the exparte  applicant,  the National  Land Commission exceeded its  jurisdiction when it purported  to review  title to private property  which is  owned  by him.

39. It was alleged by the exparte applicant that the property  subject   of these  Judicial  Review  proceedings  and  whose titles   were reviewed  and   revoked  by the respondent National  Land Commission are  private  property.

40. Nonetheless, it is not disputed that the  head lease  is owned  by the Government  of Kenya  and the titles  which  are leaseholds  have a specific  terms of  99 years   after which  the Government  has the  reversionary  interest  and  right.

41. That being  the case, although  the property  is private land, the  fact that  it is  leasehold   means that  at one  time it   was public land  and therefore  what the National  Land Commission would  be  doing  in reviewing  the titles or dispositions in those parcels of land, is to  investigate, on  its  own motion or following  a third  party’s  complaint, whether  the process  of acquiring  that  private  land which  was formerly public  land  was  regular, legal and  or without  any fraud  or misrepresentation.

42. In other words, in order for  the National  Land Commission to  execute  its statutory  and  constitutional  mandate, it must  review  the process by which  the public land was granted  to private persons. If that were not the case, then the principles and purposes of the Constitution would be defeated since in Kenya, one has to appreciate the history of the land question which is hinged on the private individuals who were loyalists to the establishment  of the day were, over a period of time heavily rewarded with allocation of public land including land occupied by the  police stations, schools and even Government institutions and not even the judiciary land was spared in that its buildings were grabbed by private individuals and entities.

43. It is  for  that reason that  I find, without  hesitation, that  the framers of the Constitution found it necessary to provide for review of titles of public land with a Read in establishing that it would defeat logic if the Commission was to review public land owned by public institutions.

44. In my humble view, the National  Land Commission has jurisdiction  to review  title to  land  which though  private, but is leasehold  land  where  the head lessor  (grantor)  is the  Government, in order to establish  whether the  process of  acquisition  of that  title  to that particular land  as is in this  case,  was legal  or regular.

45. However, still on the question of jurisdiction of the National  Land Commission to review title to  land,  and  proceeding to revoke   the said title(s), the  question is whether the National  Land Commission after reviewing the titles  or dispositions in land has the jurisdiction to revoke  the said titles.

46. A  reading  of Articles  67,68 of the Constitution and  Section 14   of the National  Land Commission Act  does not  establish  any power  bestowed  upon the  National  Land Commission to revoke  titles to land.

47. Section  14(8)  of the National  Land Commission Act  Cap  5D of Laws of Kenya  provides, under  the heading  14: Review of grants  and dispositions.

1) Subject  to Article   68 ( c) (v)  of the Constitution, the Commission shall, within  five years  of the commencement  of this Act, on its  own motion or upon  a complaint  by the National and  County Government, a community  or an individual, review  all grants  or  dispositions   of public  land to establish  their propriety or legality.

2) ……..

3) In exercise of  the  powers  under  subsection (1), the Commission shall give every person  who appears  to  the Commission to have an  interest  in the grant  or disposition concerned, a note of such review  and an  opportunity  to appear  before it  and to inspect any relevant documents.

4) After hearing the parties, in accordance with Subsection (3)  the  commission shall make   a determination.

5) Where  the commission  finds that  the title   was acquired  in an  unlawful manner, the  commission  shall direct  he Registrar  to revoke the title.

6) Where  the commission finds that the  title was  irregularly  acquired, the  commission  shall take    appropriate  steps  to correct   the irregularity  and may  also  make consequential  orders.

7) No revocation of title shall be effected against a bona fide  purchaser  for value without  notice of  a defect.

8) In the exercise  of its  power under  this Section, the commission shall be  guided by the  principles  set out  under Article  47  of the Constitution.

9) The commission  may, where it  considers  it necessary, petition  Parliament  to extend  the period for  undertaking  the review  specified  in Subsection (1).

48. From the above  clear provisions  of the law, it is trite that   whereas Section 14(1)  of  the National Land Commission  vests the Commission with the statutory mandate  to review  grants of dispositions  of public  land to establish   their propriety or  legality, nonetheless, the power to revoke title to land does not vest in the Commission.Under Section 14 (5), it is clear that  where the  commission  finds that the title  was acquired  in an unlawful manner,  the commission   shall  direct  the  Registrar  to revoke  the title .

49. The power  to revoke  titles  is  vested  by statute  the  Registrar  and not in the Commission and therefore  where the  Commission  purports  to revoke  any title  whether that title  was acquired  illegally  or irregularly, that  act  of revocation is illegal  and  ultra  vires   the statute and it  would be   amenable   to  Judicial Review  by way of an order of certiorari.

50. In the  instant  case, it is not  in dispute that the subject titles   are registered  in the names of  the  exparte  applicant  and  whether  or not  they were  acquired  regularly  or illegally is not for this court to  determine.

51. What this court  is concerned about   is whether the National Land Commission’s   decision to  revoke  the said titles    as per the  Gazette Notices  vide the Kenya Gazette  Notice No. 6  VOL CXVIII dated  22nd January  2016, Gazette Notice No.  307  of the same   dated  titled “ Determination for Review of Grants  and  dispositions of Public Land” at page 120 items  No. 80,81 and  82  regarding  Nairobi/Block 82/8866, Nairobi /Block  82/8867 and Nairobi/Block 82/8868 both of Nairobi   Embakasi, without naming any interested party, but under the column for  “Determination and vesting” it is indicated “ title revoked /title to be regularized,” was made  with jurisdiction.

52. This court  would have excused  the National  Land Commission if the  National  Land Commission had after  determining the legality or otherwise of the suit titles, among others, it  instructed  the Registrar  to revoke  the title.

53. However, at page  118 and page  120 of the Kenya  Gazette Notice, it is crystal clear that  the Commission had made  a determination in respect of the named subject  grants and had revoked   the grants (titles)  to the subject lands.  What appears  to be pending  is “ title to be regularized”  which speaks  to the future,  unlike  “ title  revoked” which  speaks  to what  had already taken  place.

54. With such  a clear  decision  as to  what  had happened to the exparte  applicant’s grants  to the suit  properties, this court  need not  look for  any super  decision to  anchor  its  finding  that  National  Land Commission in revoking  the exparte  applicant’s  grants  to the suit properties  acted  illegally and ultra vires.

55. Section 14(5)  of the National  Land Commission Act  which mandates  the  National  Land Commission, after finding that the title  to the land was acquired  in an unlawful  manner, the Commissions shall direct the Registrar to revoke  the title was not followed. The National Land Commission in revoking the subject titles usurped the power vested in the Chief Land Registrar.

56. The said respondent  National  Land Commission was  served  with the pleadings in this case to appear  in court and  explain  circumstances  that may  have informed  it to  revoke  the title to the  subject  parcels  but the Commission  never seized that  opportunity.

57. Accordingly, on that ground of want of jurisdiction  to  revoke  title to land or grant, this court would not hesitate  to hold  and I  hereby  hold that  the respondent  the National  Land Commission acted  outside  its jurisdiction   or statutory  mandate  when it  revoked  the grant to the  exparte applicant’s leasehold properties, and that it acted in excess of its jurisdiction.

58. A decision  that is  ultra vires  calls  for being  called into  this court   for purposes of  being  quashed by  a Judicial Review  order of  Certiorari, which I hereby invoke  and  call into this court for  purposes of  quashing  and  I hereby quash that  decision of the National  Land Commission communicated  vide Gazette Notice No.  307 of  22nd January  2016  to the public   to revoke  the title/grants  to properties  No,  Block 82/8866; Block  82/8867 and  Block 82/8868 all of Embakasi Nairobi.

59. However, I must also establish  whether  the respondent  National  Land Commission in making  such a drastic decision, acted in accordance with the Constitutional and statutory mandate as espoused in Articles 47(2)  50(1)  of the Constitution  and Section  14(8)  of the National  Land Commission Act   and  Section  4 of the  Fair Administrative  Action Act   No. 4  of 2015 which latter Act came  into force  on  17th June  2015,  before the  impugned  acts of the   Respondent /National  Land Commission herein and which  latter Act  is  therefore  applicable in these proceedings.

60. In other words, was the exparte  applicant  afforded any hearing, let  alone a fair hearing, prior to such determination or decision to revoke  his titles  to land.

61. Section  14(8) of  the National  Land Commission Act mandates  the respondent   when exercising  its powers to review  grants or  dispositions  in land concerned, to be guided  by the  principles  set out under   Article  47 of the Constitution.

62. Article 47 of the Constitution guarantees every person a right to fair administrative action. Under Section14( 3) of the National Land Commission  Act, the Commission is mandated  to give notice to every  person who appears  to the respondent, to have an interest  in the grant   or disposition  to be reviewed and such person  is entitled  to appear before the Commission and inspect any relevant  documents.  Further, Section 14 (4) is clear that a determination should only be made after the hearing the parties.

63. According to the exparte applicant, he  was never given  any notice  to appear   before the  Commission  or to make  representation  or to  inspect   any relevant  documents  before  the drastic  revocation of  his titles  was made   which action  or inaction  he claims violates  his constitutional  and statutory  rights to be accorded  a fair hearing  before being  condemned.

64. I have  examined Gazette notice  No. 307 of  22nd January 2016  which  is the  official  notification by the Commission of the  determination for review  of  grants  and disposition of  public  land.  The  said notice   says in its introductory  paragraphs:

“ In exercise  of the powers  conferred  by Article 68 ( c ) (v)  of the Constitution  of Kenya  and  Section  14(4),(5) (6) (7)  and (8)  of the  National  Land Commission Act , 2012, the Chairman  of the National  Land Commission informs  the general  public that  the National  Land Commission upon receipt of  complaints from the National Government, County Governments  and members of the public  undertook  review of grants  and   dispositions (titles)  of public  land to  establish  their legality  or otherwise.  The commission via  a public  notice   in the national dailies invited all interested parties to appear before it, inspect documents and make written  representations and submission.  Consequently, the commission has made determination  in respect of  the  following  grants s and  orders s as follows:…..”

65. The above  notice  does not  specify  at page 120 who the complainant  or interested  party(s)  in respect of  titles  Block 82/8866;  82/8867 and  82/8868 was (were). It does not state what the complaint was all about or what it  related to; the notice does not even mention the date  on which  the notice   was placed  in  the dailies  inviting  all the interested  or affected  parties  to appear  before it  to inspect  documents  and make  written  representation and  submissions; neither  does the notice mention in which specific national dailies the notice was published  inviting   all affected  parties to  appear before it.

66. If all the procedure  laid down  under Section  14 of the National  Land Commission Act  was followed, then this  court wonders why the respondent Commission could  not make  an appearance  before  this court   to defend its actions.

67. Article   47  of the Constitution  of Kenya  which is echoed  in Section  14  of the National  Land Commission Act  on the right to fair administrative action and as implemented by the Fair  Administrative  Action Act No. 4  of  2015   is clear that (1) every  person has the right  to administrative  action that is  expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable  and  procedurally fair. (2)  If a right or fundamental  freedom of person  has been   or is likely to be adversely  affected by administrative  action, the person has the right  to be given  written   reasons  for the action.

68. rom the above  constitutional  provisions  as espoused in the Bill of Rights, is it clear that  the right to fair administrative  action which is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and  procedurally fair  has been elevated  to a constitutional  right and  not just  a rule  of practice  under  common law.  That being  the case,  the respondent  and any other  tribunal, body  person  or authority  exercising  judicial or  quasi  judicial  jurisdiction  like  the National  Land Commission must  exercise  that power or  jurisdiction  in conformity  with the  Rules of Natural Justice, as espoused in Article  47(1)  of the Constitution, Section  14,(3) (4) and (8) of the National  Land Commission Act,  2012  and Sections 3 and  4  of the  Fair Administrative  Action Act No. 4  of  2015.

69. There are a  plethora  of decisions  on  this issue  of the right to  fair administrative  action, both  old and   new, just  to cite  but a few.

70. In De Souza  V Tanga  Town Council  [1961]  EA  377, the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa held:

“ The  general  principles  which should guide  statutory domestic  or  administrative tribunals  sitting in a  quasi judicial capacity  are well known.  The authorities are reviewed in the recent case of  University of Ceylon  V Fernando  (4), [1960]1 ALL E.R 631.  I think that the principles, so far as they affect   the present  case, may be summarized  as  under:

1) If a statute  prescribes, or statutory  rules  or regulations binding  on the domestic tribunal prescribe, the procedure to be  followed, that procedure  must be   observed.

2) If no  procedure  is laid  down, there  may be  an obvious  implication  that some form of inquiry must be  made such  as will enable  the tribunal fairly to  determine  the question at issue.

3) In such a case the tribunal, which should be  properly   constituted, must do its best  to act  justly  and to reach just  ends  by  just means.  It must act in  good faith  and  fairly  listen to both sides.  It is  not bound, however, to treat  the  question as if it were a trial:  It need not examine  witnesses; and  it can obtain  information  in  any way  it thinks  best…..A member of  the tribunal   may, it seems, question witnesses  in the absence if the other members  of the tribunal and of the  defendant and it  is not necessarily  fatal  that the evidenced of witnesses (including  that of the  complainant) may have  been taken by the tribunal  in the absence  of the defendants..

4) The person accused must know the nature of  the accusation made…

5) A fair  opportunity  must be given to  those who  are parties to the  controversy  to correct  or contradict  any statement  prejudicial  to their view; and to make   any  relevant  statement  they may desire  to bring  forward.

6) The tribunal   should see  the matter which  has  come into existence for the purpose of  the quasi-lis is made available  to both sides  and, once the  quasi-lis has started, if the tribunal  receives  a communication from  one party, it should give the other  party an  opportunity  of commenting  on  it…..”

71. What  the above decision is speaking  to any  quasi  judicial body  exercising  administrative  powers  is that  the person  who is likely to be affected  by  a decision  must be  given the  allegations, the evidence in support  thereof  and an  opportunity  to rebut those  allegations  before  a decision  is made  against  that person.

72.  In the instant  case,  the exparte   applicant  complains that    he  was   never given  notice of  the intended  review  of his  titles  and or any evidence  in support  of the review.  Neither   was  he given  reasons for  the intended  review.  The notice of  determination  of the  review  of the said  titles  vide Gazette Notice   No. 307/22/1/2016 which I have  reproduced  in this judgment in part  does not even  reflect  the reasons for  the  revocation  of the subject titles.  There is  no  allegation or conclusion reached  that the said  titles were acquired fraudulently or through   misrepresentation or through  illegal  or  irregular means.

73. The respondent  National Land Commission has not  controverted  the serious assertions and depositions  by the exparte  applicant  that he   was never  given an opportunity  to be heard  before the  titles  in issue   were revoked unilaterally, which  in essence is a violation of the applicant’s right to fair administrative action as enshrined  in Article 47(1)  of the Constitution and  as stipulated in Section  4 of the Fair Administrative  Action Act  No. 4  of 2015 which provide:

1) Every  person  has the right to  administrative  action which is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable  and  procedurally  fair;

2) Every person has the right  to be given   written  reasons   for any administrative action  that is s  taken against him.

3) Where  an administrative  action is  likely to adversely  affect  the rights  or fundamental  freedoms  of any person, the  administrator  shall give the person  affected  by the decision-

a) Prior and adequate  notice of  the nature and reasons  for the proposed administrative  action.

b) An opportunity to be heard and to make representations  in that regard;

c) Notice of a right to  a review  or internal  appeal against an administrative  decision, where applicable;

d) A statement  of reasons  pursuant  to section 6;

e) Notice of the right  to cross examine   or where applicable;

f) Notice of  the right to  cross examine  or where  applicable or

g) Information, materials and evidence  to be relied  upon in making the decision  or taking  the administrative action.

4) The administrative  shall  accord  the person  against who  administrative  action is taken an opportunity to-

a) Attend  proceedings, in person or in the  company  of an expert  of his  choice;

b) Be heard;

c) Cross examine  persons   who give  adverse  evidence  against  him; and

d) Request for an adjournment of the proceedings, where  necessary to ensure  a fair  hearing.

5) Nothing  in this  Section, shall  have  the effect  of limiting the right  of any  person  to appear   or be  represented  by a legal representative in judicial or quasi-judicial  proceedings.

6) Where the administrator  is empowered  by any  written  law to follow  a procedure  which  conforms  to the  principles set out in Article  47 of the Constitution, the  administrator may act  in accordance  with that   different   procedure.”

74. The procedure  for considering  review  of grants  or dispositions  in land  is clearly  set out  in Section  14  of the National Land  Commission  Act  and in the event  any  deficiency in that  procedure, the fair  Administrative  Action Act  is at  hand to  fill in  that gap if any, since the  impugned  decision   was made  after  the said Act came  into force.  That  being  the case, this court  does not  find any reason why the respondent National Land  Commission  could not  follow  those procedures  to accord  the exparte  applicant   an opportunity  to be heard, and  to give  him reasons  why, after reviewing  his titles, the Commission found it  necessary  to  have the same  revoked, and in any event, by the Registrar and not by the Commission.

75. Consequently, this court  finds  that the applicant’s  right  to fair administrative  action as stipulated  in Article  47(1)  of  the Constitution  and Section  4   of the Fair  Administrative  Action Act  No. 4  of  2015   was  violated.

76. Even  assuming  that the purported  notices  notifying  the public and or  interested  parties  of the intention to review  the   stated  titles  were placed in the   unnamed  national  dailies, as was observed  by honourable  Korir  J in  Republic vs  National Land  Commission  & Tropical Treasure  Limited Exparte Kystalline Salt Limited [2015] e KLR  at page  14  of  17 of the judgment:

“ 67. In summary, an accused  person is  entitled  to know the  allegations, the  evidence  in support of the  allegations  and  ought to be given an opportunity  to rebut  the allegations  before   an impartial  tribunal.  I have   already reproduced  a  paragraph of  the  affidavit  in support of  the applicant’s  case in  Judicial Review  No. 309 of 2014  in which  Mr Patel admits  that he  saw  the notice  in the newspapers   inviting  the applicant  for a review  of  its titles.  Was that sufficient  compliance  with the Rules  of natural justice  by the respondent?  I  will have  to examine  the evidence  in this case  in order to arrive at  a decision.

77. As earlier stated, the notice  in the  unnamed daily newspapers  did not  have the  name (s)  of the complainant  and  neither  did it  disclose  the complaint  against  the applicant’s  titles.

78. In my humble view, in order for  the applicant   to prepare  its defence, it  ought to  have been  served with  the  particulars  of the allegations  by the interested  party(s)  and  informed  of the  manner that the applicant   allegedly  obtained  grants to public land in an illegal  or improper  manner.

79. In a matter  that eventually led to the revocation  of the applicant’s  titles, a notice in the newspapers  without any  useful  information  was not  sufficient.

80. Infact the standard  service is provided for in another  land statute which is part VIII of the Land  Act  which  deals  with compulsory  acquisition of  interests  in land at Section  131 as  follows:

“131(1) A notice which may be given under this Part.  Service of notices may be served on a person-

a) By  delivering  it to  the  person  personally;

b) By sending  it by registered  post  to the  person’s  last known  address;

c) If the whereabouts  of the person  or  the address  cannot, after  reasonable  inquiry, be  ascertained, by  leaving it  with the occupier  of the land concerned  or, if there is no occupier, by affixing it upon  some prominent  part of the land;

d) If the person is a body corporate, society or other  association of persons, by serving  it personally  on a secretary, director  or  other officer  thereof  or on a person  concerned  or acting  in the management  thereof  or by leaving  it or sending it by registered  post  addressed  to the body corporate, society or if   there is  no registered  office, at any  place  where it  carries  on business, or, if there is none, by  leaving it  with the  occupier, by  affixing  it upon some prominent  part of the land; or

e) The commission may in addition to serving  notice by  paragraph (c) and (d), place an advertisement in two newspapers with  a national circulation.”

81. In addition, the same Land Act provides at  section 151 of the Miscellaneous  Provisions in  Part XI  for substituted  service  as  follows:

“ 151.  If the  commission is satisfied   that  a notice   effected and  cannot be  served  personally or by post, either because  the person  to be served is evading  service  or for  some other  reason the commission may  order service  to be  effected  by-

a) Affixing  a copy of the notice   in a  conspicuous  place;

i. On or as  near as  may be  to the   land where  possible; and

Iii. f the land is community land, at  the offices of  the community land  committee  or other   public place   within the  village  or

iii. If the land is public land, at the offices of the County Government  having  jurisdiction  in the area  where the land  is located or  other public  place  in the  area  where  the land is located; and

b) Publishing   a copy in the gazette  and if  it thinks  fit, one  or more  newspapers  circulating  in Kenya.”

82. As  was observed by the Honourable  Korir J, personal service  of notice  of  intention to  review  grants of disposition  in  land is  very  important  and  as stipulated  in  Section  131  of the Land  Act, service  through advertisement  in two newspapers  with a national  circulation is only in addition  to serving notice    where the  person’s  whereabouts  or address cannot, after reasonable  inquiry  be ascertained.  In such latter case, the  notice can  be left at the last known place or with occupier  of land  or at some  prominent part of the land and  in the case of a corporate entity or a society  or association, personal service  upon a Secretary, director  or  other person  acting in the management.

83. Thus, alternative means of service of notice can only be   resorted  to where personal service  or service  by registered post  to  the person’s  last known  address had  failed.

84. Further, advertisement  in the newspapers is  only meant  to inform the  public  on the intended service  and not  considered  as  service.

85. As earlier stated, there is no  evidence that the exparte  applicant  herein was ever served  with notice to review  the grants  to his  3 parcels  of land  and  neither   was he served with specific  allegations  that would necessitate  review of the said grants.  Further, even after the  said grants   were unilaterally  reviewed, the notice of  22nd  January  2016   vide Gazette  Notice No.  307 of   22nd January 2016   does not disclose the reasons for revocation of the titles  to  the said   three parcels  of land.

86. Under such circumstances, this  court has  no alternative  but to find  that the entire  process  employed  by the National Land  commission  in reviewing  the exparte  applicant’s grants   and  dispositions  in the  three titles  Block 82/8866, 82/8867 and  82/8868  was  improper  and unlawful.

87. None  compliance  with the  Rules of  natural  justice  as coded  in the   provisions  of Article  47(1)  of the Constitution and  Section  4 of  the Fair Administrative  Action  Act No. 4  of  2015  and  Section  14 of the  National  Land Commission Act  is a  fertile  ground  for granting  Judicial Review  orders.

88. In the instant case, the applicant  has also  lamented   that  revocation of his titles   without any  justifiable   or reasonable   cause is  in  violation   of Article  40 of the Constitution   which guarantees   every  person   the right  to own  property   of any description  in any  part of the  country, and the  right  to be  protected  from arbitrary  deprivation of the  said property other than  through the  known  constitutional means.

89. This court  does appreciate  that the  rights  to own property  and to be protected  from arbitrary  deprivation thereof under  Article  40 of the Constitution  is  not absolute  in that under  Article  40 (b)  of the Constitution, that  right does not  extend to any property that is  found  to have been  unlawfully acquired.

90. It  therefore follows that indeed, the  Commission   has a statutory  mandate to initiate proceedings in court  for the determination on the unlawfulness of the  acquisition.( see  Chemei Investments  Limited  Vs Attorney General  & Others  Petition No.  94/2005  cited  with approval  in Isaac Gathungu Wanjohi  & Another  vs Attorney General   &  6 Others(supra).

91. Thus,  the procedure  of determining  the unlawfulness   or irregularity  in the acquisition  of the titles    must follow due process.  In Kuria  Greens  Ltd V Registrar of  Titles   & Another[2011] e KLR, the court   was faced  with the situation  where the  petitioner’s  titles  were revoked  through  the  Kenya Gazette  Notice.  Honourable  Musinga J  ( as he then  was )  held that the nullification of the petitioner’s titles was unconstitutional  null and void.  The court   further stated  and  I concur;

“ Assuming there    was fraud  or misrepresentation in alienating  the suit  land to the  original  registered  proprietor, the proprietor  was not  party  to such fraud  or  misrepresentation.  The  petitioner  lawfully purchased  the suit  land….

Whereas  unlawful acquisition of public  property  by citizens  must be lawfully  resisted, the court will be  failing  in its constitutional  duties  if it  failed to protect citizens  from unlawful  acquisition of their property  by the state through  unlawful decisions taken by  public officers.”

92. In the end, and  based on all the above   analyses, I find that the respondent’s  decision to nullify the  applicant’s titles was made  without  jurisdiction, unlawfully, unprocedural and violated  the constitutional  and  statutory  enactments   and therefore  such a decision cannot be allowed to stand  ( see also the   decision  by said  J Chitembwe  J in  Republic  Vs Land   Registrar  Kakamega  District  & Another  exparte  Kito  Pharmaceutical Ltd  &  2  Others(supra).

93. In the end, I find that the exparte  applicant’s  notice of motion  seeking for  Judicial Review  order of certiorari  as prayed   in the notice  of motion dated  22nd February  2016  is merited.

94. Accordingly, an order of  certiorari is hereby issued  to remove  into this court  for the purpose of quashing  and I hereby  quash  the decision of the  1st respondent the National  Land Commission as published in the Gazette Notice No. 307 of 22nd January, 2016  revoking  titles  over Nairobi/Block  82/8866; Nairobi/Block 82/8867 and  Nairobi /Block 82/8868.

95. On the prayer for prohibition, this court having quashed the decision to revoke the subject   titles, there is nothing left   to be prohibited.  In addition, this court would not prohibit a lawful exercise of constitutional or statutory mandate of the National Land Commission.  The process   of reviewing  titles if procedurally and   lawfully  done  is in accordance   with the established  legal  regime, to determine  how the  applicant  acquired  the said titles  from the Government  and therefore  the  court must  not prohibit  that  process.

96. Accordingly, I decline  to  grant  the order of  prohibition  sought in the notice  of motion dated  22nd  February 2016.

97. I order that  the exparte  applicant  bears  his own costs  of these   Judicial  Review  proceedings in view of   the fact that there are thousands  of  similar  claims sought   against the 1st respondent the National  Land  Commission  which is  a  public body  and which is  likely  to be grounded if costs   were ordered against  it  in each of  those  pending  decisions.

98. Nonetheless, this  court can only  hope that the National  Land Commission takes a cue  from the  past decisions, this one included, and  reorganizes  itself  on how to discharge its constitutional and statutory mandate and to ensure that it   exercises  its mandate  in accordance  with the dictates of the Constitution and the law  to avoid  burdening  the public  tax payer  and the court  with unnecessary  litigation and costs.

99. In that  regard, I direct  that upon  delivery  and  signing  of this judgment, the Deputy Registrar of this court shall effect service of a copy thereof  upon the Chairman  Prof. Muhammad A. Swazuri and Chief Executive Officer  of the National Land Commission Mr Tom Aziz Chavangi, personally for their  perusal  and necessary  future  action.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 5th day of December, 2016.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Mr Waithaka h/b for Miss Kimasia for the exparte applicant

N/A for the Respondent

CA: Lorna