Satelitte Industrial Supplies Limited v National Land Commission [2017] KEHC 6063 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  632 OF 2016

IN THE MATER OF AN APPLICATION BY SATELITTE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES LIMITED

FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR ORDERS OF PROHIBITION AND CERITORARI

AND

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 40, 47 AND 67(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION

AND

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

SECTIONS 8AND 9 OF THE LAW REFORM ACT AND ORDER 53 CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES.

BETWEEN

SATELITTE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES LIMITED......................................APPLICANT

VERSUS

NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION........................................................RESPONDENT

RULING ON LEAVE AND STAY

1. This  matter  was  filed under  certificate  of urgency  vide a  chamber summons  dated  15th December  2016  by Satelite  Industrial  Estates  Limited, seeking  leave of court  to institute  Judicial  Review  proceedings/orders  for :

a. Certiorari to move  into this court  and  quash the decision  of the National  Land Commission  to call  for a public  hearing for  purposes of  review  of the grant  and disposition  of the title  comprised   in property   known as LR  No. 209/13539/42 or any  other private  land;

b. Prohibition retraining the respondent NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION from calling or conducting any hearing   or review in respect of the property known as LR No. 209/13539/42 or any other private property;

c. A declaration  that the National Land Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with   land that  has acquired  the status  of private land  pursuant  to Article   62   as read with Article   64  of the Constitution  and it is only the Environment  and  Land Court  that has jurisdiction   to investigate  and  determine the legality   of such  title;

d. An order  that there be  a stay of any further  proceedings and   implementation  of any decision by  the respondent  as a  result of any hearing  or meeting held  by the respondent  pursuant  to the  public notice  advertised on the  National Dailies of  28th October  2016  or any  other forum;

e. That the grant  of leave do  operate  as a stay of any further  proceedings  in respect of LR No. 209/13539/42 and  further public hearings and  implementation  of decisions if the National Land  Commission  pursuant  to such hearings  in respect of private land;

f. The costs of the application be provided for.

2. The  court after  considering  the  certificate or urgency, found no urgency  involved  and  directed that the application  be served  upon the respondent National Land Commission for  interpartes  mention  on 23th January  2017 together with   JR  635/2016 which had also come up the same day for similar  orders.

3. When  the matter came up on 23rd January 2017  the respondent  appeared  through Mr Mbuthia who sought  for  7 days  to file  a replying affidavit  which he  had  prepared.

4. The court granted the respondent  7 days  to file a  response to the application but by  15th February  2017  when  the matter  came up  for interpartes   hearing, there  was still no response to the   application.  Mr  Murunga holding  brief  for Mr  Mbuthia  for the National Land Commission informed the court that Mr  Mbuthia  was in  Lamu  on official duties  and that  he needed  7 more  days to file a reply, as the National Land Commission had  completed the digitization of documents the previous day  hence the required  documents had been  traced.  The application for adjournment was opposed by Mr Njenga counsel for the applicant on account of procrastination on the part of the respondent and the court disallowed the adjournment sought.  Mr Njenga was allowed to proceed and urge the application for leave and stay. He submitted, replying on the statutory   statement and verifying affidavit filed.

5. According to Mr Njenga counsel for the applicant, the respondent National Land Commission has no mandate to review private land dispositions yet that is what it had embarked on as shown by the advertisement notice to the public signed by Professor Muhammed A.Swazuri issued in the Daily Newspaper  annexed (date not clear but shows 28/2016  item No. 100 on the 2nd page (29).  Mr Njenga relied on the authorities filed on 15th December 2016 namely: JR. No. 117/2016; Republic vs National Land Commission Exparte Cecilia  Chepkoech  Leting  &  2 Others; Nairobi  Permanent  Markets  Society  & Others  V Salima Enterprises  & Others [1995-98] 1           EA232;Bwambale & Another  v Matte & Others  [2005] 2 EA  49; Moya Drift  Farm Ltd  v Theuri  [1973] EA 118; Choitram V Mystery  Model Hair Saloon [1972] EA  525; among other cases  all totaling 19 in number, to support his arguments that the National Land Commission has no jurisdiction  to conduct  any inquiry or review  is  unconstitutional and ultra vires  its mandate. Counsel therefore  sought orders  of leave  and that  the leave granted to operate as stay of implementation of the notice calling for public hearings.

6. Mr  Murunga  holding brief  for  Mr Mbuthia  had no submission to make  so he left it to court.

7. The applicant’s application is supported by grounds, statutory  statement  and  a detailed   verifying  affidavit   sworn by  Simon  Kamuiru  on  15th December   2016   who deposes  that he is  the Director  of the applicant  and that the applicant  is the registered  owner of LR 209/13539/42 which is  private land hence National Land Commission is precluded by law and the Constitution   from carrying  out any   inquiry of  review  of title or disposition in private land  and that  there has never  been a finding by a competent court that the suit land had been unlawfully or irregularly  acquired hence  the National Land Commission was acting  ultra vires and against the Rules of Natural  Justice  among many  other  accusations. He prayed for the orders sought.

Determination

8. In deciding whether or not to grant leave to institute Judicial Review proceedings, the court is   not to delve into the depths of the merits of the intended proceedings.  What  the applicant  is   required to show the court is that the application is not  frivolous  or vexatious or that the same is not an abuse of the court process  or that the application is not statute  barred.

9. Leave should, as a rule, be granted if, on the material available, the court considers, without going into the depths of the matter, that there is a prima facie arguable case.

10. Leave stage, as has been  stated  over and  over, is a filter  whose  purpose  is  to weed  out  hopeless  cases  at  the earliest possible  time, thus saving the  pressure  on the courts  and  needless  expense  for the applicant  by  allowing  malicious  and  futile claims   to be weeded  out or  eliminated  so as to prevent  public  bodies  being paralysed  for months  because  of pending  court  action which might  turn out  to be unmeritorious.  These  are principles  espoused  in Matiba  V Attorney  General  Nairobi HCC  Miscellaneous  Application No. 790/1993, Republic  V LDT  Court Central  Division & Another  Exparte  Nzioka   [2006] 1 EA  321; Republic vs  The Permanent  Secretary  Ministry of Planning  and National Development  Exparte  Kaimenyi [2006] 1 EA  353 among others  that have  applied  the  above decisions, including  Republic Vs  County Council of Kwale & Another exparte Kondo  & 57 Others  Mombasa  HC  Miscellaneous  Application  384/1996 [Waki  J).

11. The Court of Appeal  in Mirugi  Kariuki  Vs Attorney General  CA 70/91 [1990-1994] EA 156[1992] KLR  8 set  the yardstick  for grant  of leave  when it stated, inter alia:

“……….if he fails to show, when he applies for leave, a prima facie case, on reasonable grounds for believing that there has been a failure of public duty, the court would be in error if it granted leave.The curb represented by the need for the applicant to show, when he seeks leave to apply, that he has a case, is an essential protection against abuse of the legal process.  It  enables  the court to prevent   abuse  by busy bodies, cranks and others mischief   makers……In this  appeal,  the issue is  whether   the appellant   in his application for  leave to apply for orders  of certiorari   and  mandamus  demonstrated  to the High Court a prima  facie case for the grant  of those orders….clearly, once  breach of the  rules of  natural justice   was alleged, the exercise  of discretion  by the Attorney  General  under Section  11(1) of the Act was brought  into question.  Without a rebuttal to these allegations, the appellant certainly disclosed a prima facie case.  For that, he should have been granted leave to apply for the orders sought.” [emphasis added]  See also Republic vs Communications Commission of Kenya  & 2 Others Exparte EA Televisions Network Ltd CA  175 of  2000[2001] KLR 82.

12. In ReBivac International SA (Bureau Veritas [2005] 2 EA 43, the court stated inter alia:

“ Application for leave  to apply for orders  of Judicial Review  are normally  exparte and such  an application does  restrict  the court to  threshold  issues  namely  whether   the applicant  has  an arguable  case,  and whether  leave is granted, the same   should operate  as stay……….”

13. In the instant  case, and in the absence  of  any rebuttal  to the grounds and   depositions  by the applicant  that the land in issue  is private  land  and that therefore  the respondent  National Land Commission has no jurisdiction to review the title/disposition  thereof, this court  finds that  the applicant’s case discloses  an arguable prima facie  issue for  investigation and determination  by the court at the substantive   stage. This is not to say that the case must succeed.

14. Accordingly, I find  that the  application for leave is  merited and  I therefore allow it  as  prayed, granting the applicant  leave to  institute  Judicial Review  proceedings as sought   in prayer  Nos. 2a,b and c of the chamber  summons dated  15th December  2016.  The substantive motion to be filed and served upon the respondent  National Land  Commission  and  upon any  other  person complainant or claiming any interest in LR No. 209/13539/42 within  21  days  from the date  hereof.

15. On  the second  limb  to this application  that leave  so granted  do operate as stay of any further proceedings and implementation of any decision  made  by the respondent  as  a result  of any  hearing  or meeting held by the respondent  pursuant to the public notice  advertised  in the National Dailies s of  28th October  2016 or any  other forum; and  or that the leave granted  do operate  as stay  of any further  proceedings  in respect of LR No. 209/13539/42 and further  public hearings and  implementation  of decisions  of the  National  Land  Commission  pursuant  to such hearings  in respect  of private land; it is equally  important   to note that  just as  grant  of leave is in  the discretion of the  court which  discretion  must be  exercised  judiciously, stay in Judicial Review proceedings is equally an exercise of judicial discretion.  Stay is not automatic.

16. Furthermore, it is not in every case where leave is granted to apply for Judicial Review that stay would be granted.  Under Order 53 Rule 1 of the  Civil Procedure  Rules, the court  granting leave  can order  for stay of implementation  of the impugned decision, in applications for certiorari and  prohibition, not  in  mandamus.  Further where the decision  ought  to be  quashed  has been   implemented  leave sought  would not operate  as stay( see Maraga J in Taib A. Taib v The Minister  of Local  Government  & Others  Mombasa  HC Miscellaneous   Application  158 of 2006.

17. In this case, I am satisfied  on  the material  placed before   me that unless  stay is not granted, the  applicant shall  be rendered  a mere pious  explorer  in the judicial  process and therefore  if his application is successful at the substantive  stage, then the  orders  issued shall be  nugatory  and  a mere academic  exercise  would have  been carried out.  The applicant  will have to  file fresh  application for Judicial  Review  which will  be a great  inconvenience  and  an  expensive  exercise.

18. Accordingly, I exercise my discretion and grant to the applicant stay  orders  sought  in  prayer 2(d) and  3 of the  chamber summons  dated  15th December  2016, costs  shall be  in the cause.

19. The applicant to file  written submissions  and  serve within 10 days  upon which  the respondent  shall file  and serve  response  and  written submissions  within 10 days from the date  of service. Mention on 28th March 2017 to fix a date for highlighting of submissions.

Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 27th day of February, 2017.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE