The Republic AND MATAMPASH OLE SAIRE AND 1 Others VS LAND ADJUDICATION OFFICER,TRANSMARA WEST AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND 14 Others

JUDGEMENT

1. The Ex-parte Applicants herein filed the present Notice of Motion application dated 10.08.2020 (hereinafter referred to as “the present JR application”) against the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents seeking for the following Orders; -
2. An order of PROHIBITION directed at the 1^st Respondent whether by himself, his servants, agents, officers, successors and/or assigns, prohibiting him from implementing the decisions made on 6^th February 2020 and 7^th July 2020 or in any other way implementing the said decisions.
3. An Order of CERTIORARI to remove to this Honourable Court the decision of the 1^st Respondent, the Land Adjudication Officer, Transmara West made on the 6^th of February 2020 and 7^th July 2020 in total abrogation of the Ex-parte Applicant’s right to fair administrative action for purposes of being quashed.
4. An order of PROHIBITION prohibiting the 1^st Respondent from proceeding with declaration of KIMINTET “E” as an Adjudication Section in so far as the said declaration covers the geographical area of Kimintet Sub-Location of Siria East Location, Transmara that was declared an adjudication section on the 29^th October 1986.
5. A declaration that the 1^st Respondent’s account of the various matters complained of in this Application with respect of Kimintet Adjudication has breached the Ex-parte Applicant’s right to a fair administrative action as guaranteed under Article 47 of the Constitution and as provided further under the Sections 3,4, 5 and 6 of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
6. A declaration that the actions and/or omissions of the Respondents herein to the extent that they violate the Ex-parte Applicants right to fair hearing as enshrined under Article 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and that further their failure to hear the Ex-parte Applicants or afford them a reasonable opportunity to be heard, with respect to the constructive dissolution of Kimintet Adjudication Committee as appointed on the 13^th March 1989 amounts to an unfair administrative action.
7. A declaration Order that in exercise of his powers as vested in him by statute and otherwise, the 1^st Respondent has failed to comply with the requirements and tenets of fair administrative Action Act and Articles 1
8. 0 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
9. That the grant of leave herein do operate as stay of the 1^st Respondent’s order and/or decision made on the 6^th of February 2020 and 7^th July 2020 pending the hearing and determination of the Judicial Review proceedings herein.
10. That this Honourable Court makes such other orders or further relief that it may deem just and expedient to grant for the justice to be met in the circumstances.
11. That the costs of this Application be in the cause.
12. The prayers sought hereinabove have been premised on various grounds which are contained in the present JR application as well as the supporting affidavit sworn on the 10.10.2020 which are hereby summarized as follows; -
13. The 1^st Respondent published a Declaration Notice dated 6^th February 2020 creating an Adjudication Section known as KIMINTET “E” within the same geographical area known as Kimintet Sub-Location of Sira East Location in Transmara which area have already been declared as an Adjudication Section on the 29^th October 1986.
14. In further to the above act, the 1^st Respondent again appointed another Land Adjudication Committee for the new Adjudication Section known as KIMINTET “E” yet there still existed an earlier Land Adjudication Committee appointed on the 13^th March 1989 to deal with the entire Kimintet Adjudication Section which included the area declared by the 1^st Respondent as KIMINTET “E” Adjudication Section.
15. In essence therefore, the Ex-parte Applicants plead that the 1^st Respondent acted in excess of jurisdiction in his decision to declare the Adjudication Section known as KIMINTET “E” which was already being adjudicated under the original Declaration of Kimintet Adjudication Section that comprised of Siria East Location.
16. The Ex-parte Applicants are also arguing that the 1^st Respondent acted without jurisdiction and/or in excess of the jurisdiction given to him/her by appointing a new Land Adjudication Committee for the Adjudication Section known as KIMINTET “E” and replacing the earlier Land Adjudication Committee for the entire Kimintet Adjudication Section appointed on the 13^th of March 1989 without public participation  and therefore denying the Ex-parte Applicants an opportunity to be heard as envisaged in the Fair Administrative Action Act and rules of natural justice.
17. The Ex-parte Applicants therefore believe that the decisions of the 1^st Respondent made on the 6^th of February 2020 and 7^th July 2020 are tainted with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety given that the new Adjudication Section known as KIMINTET “E” falls within the Kimintet Adjudication Section declared on the 29^th October 1986.
18. The Ex-parte Applicants pleaded that the 1^st Respondent’s actions were ultra vires and contrary to the Land Adjudication Act as no written Petition was ever delivered to the Commissioner of Lands with a request to have a new Adjudication Section known as KIMINTET “E” and therefore, this purported declaration made on the 6^th of February 2020 was illegal and prejudicial to the Ex-parte Applicants.
19. The Ex-parte Applicants further pleaded that the creation of the Adjudication Section known as KIMINTET “E” was created and/or published without a directive to the Director of Survey based on the advice of the Land Adjudication Committee to visit the site and conduct reconnaissance of the terrain and give recommendations.
20. In essence therefore, the Ex-parte Applicants stated that the 1^st Respondent had violated Section 4,6 and 7 of the Fair Administrative Action Act as provided in paragraph 16 of the grounds in support of the prayers sought in the present JR application.
21. Similarly, the Ex-parte Applicants also accused the 1^st Respondent of violating the provisions of Article 20,47 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
22. The Ex-parte Applicants therefore sought to have the prayers contained in the present JR application granted as prayed.
23. The present JR Application was duly served on the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents as well as the Interested Parties herein.
24. The 1^st to 3^rd Respondents jointly responded to the present JR Application by filing a Replying Affidavit sworn on the 17.12.2020 to which they stated as follows; -
25. First and foremost, the 1^st Respondent refuted the claims that he acted ultra vires and contrary to law as alleged by the Ex-parte Applicants in declaring KIMINTET “E” as an Adjudication Section on the 6^th of February 2020.
26. The 1^st Respondent admitted that indeed on the 29^th of October 1986, there was a declaration of KIMINTET ADJUDICATION SECTION under Section 5 of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap 286 as NOTICE REF: LA/9/4/13/139.
27. However, on the same date of 29^th October 1986, the initial NOTICE REF: LA/9/4/13/139 creating KIMINTET ADJUDICATION SECTION was amended by two other Declarations creating KIMINTET “A” and KIMINTET “B” ADJUDICATION SECTION.
28. On the 13^th of March 1989, the office of the 1^st Respondent appointed the Land Adjudication Committee of KIMINTET “B” ADJUDICATION SECTION who duly demarcated the said Section  which now has been duly titled.
29. Similarly, on the 5^th May 1989, the office of the 1^st Respondent again declared a separate Adjudication Section known as KIMINTET “C” which was also demarcated and titles duly issued to members of the public.
30. On the 2^nd of July 1990, the office of the 1^st Respondent declared the fourth Adjudication Section known as KIMINTET “D” which has also been demarcated and titled for the benefit of the residents therein.
31. After the completion of adjudicating KIMINTET “D” ADJUDICATION SECTION, it was noted by the 1^st Respondent that there were two portions of land which were still available for adjudication within the original KIMINTET ADJUDICATION SECTION.
32. It is on this basis that the office of the 1^st Respondent proceeded to make the addition Declaration of KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION on the 6^th of February 2020.
33. The 1^st Respondent stated that on the same date of 6^th of February 2020, there was a public baraza which was convened by the residents of the area declared as KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION and on their own volition elected the 13 Interested parties herein as members of the Land Adjudication Committee.
34. The 1^st Respondent pleaded that as regards the consent from the Commissioner of Lands, it was not necessary because the creation of KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION was done through a Corrigendum within the area which had been declared as Trust land in the year 1986 when the larger KIMINTET ADJUDICATION SECTION was published.
35. In essence therefore, the Respondents opposed the Ex-parte Applicants prayers and sought this Court to dismiss the present JR Application with costs.
36. The Interest Parties also filed a response to the present JR Application through a Replying Affidavit dated 25^th of January 2021 to which they stated as follows; -
37. The Interested Parties began their response by stating that indeed on the 29^th of October 1986, the office of the 1^st Respondent published a Declaration of KIMINTET ADJUDICATION SECTION under REF: LA.9/4/13/139 which encompassed KIMINTET SUB-LOCATION within Siria East Location as an Adjudication Section.
38. However, on the same date of 29^th of October 1986, the Declaration of KIMINTET ADJUDICATION SECTION under REF: LA.9/4/13/139 was recalled and/or amended by creation of two separate Adjudication Sections known as KIMINTET “A” and KIMINTET “B” ADJUDICATION SECTIONS.
39. The Declaration of KIMINTET “A” was done through the Declaration ref: LA.9/4/108 while KIMINTET “B” was declared through the Declaration Ref: LA.9/4/144.
40. The Interested Parties pleaded that both KIMINTET “A”and KIMINTET “B” ADJUDICATION SECTIONS were duly adjudicated upon and the public issued with their relevant Certificates of Title.
41. The Interested Parties pointed out that the letter dated 13^th March 1989 relating to appointment of the Land Adjudication Committee of KIMINTET “B” duly appoints the 1^st Exparte Applicant as the Vice Chair of the said Land Adjudication Committee.
42. In this letter dated 13^th March 1989, the new Land Adjudication Committee of KIMINTET “B” which the 1^st Ex-parte Applicant was the Vice Chair cancelled the earlier Land Adjudication Committee over the entire KIMINTET ADJUDICATION SECTION appointed on the 10^th of November 1986.
43. In the year 1989, the Ex-parte Applicants being desirous of demarcating KIMINTET B ADJUDICATION SECTION in blocks, persuaded the office of the 1^st Respondent to declare new sections which now created KIMINTET “C” and KIMINTET “D” ADJUDICATION SECTION through Declarations done on the 5^th of May 1989 and 2^nd July 1990 respectively.
44. These two Adjudication Sections known as KIMINTET “C” and KIMINTET “D” were subsequently demarcated, adjudicated and titles issued to the public.
45. Be as it may, there were two other portions within the original KIMINTET ADJUDICATION SECTION that have not be adjudicated upon and it was on the basis of demand by the residents on these portions that the office of the 1^st Respondent declared KIMINTET “E”and KIMINTET “F” as Adjudication Sections to administer these portions of land.
46. The declaration of KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION was done the 6^th of February 2020 while that of KIMINTET “F” ADJUDICATION SECTION was also done on the same date 6^th of February 2020.
47. After the publication of KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION, a public baraza was duly called and 426 residents as well as local leaders attended and the 13 Interested parties were then elected as the Land Adjudication Committee thereof and formally appointed on the 7^th of July 2020.
48. The Interested parties stated that the 1^st and 2^nd Ex-parte Applicants were already beneficiaries of various properties in KIMINTET “C” and KIMINTET “D” based on other Declarations different from that of 1986 and therefore it is mischievous and in bad faith that they are now challenging the creation and adjudication of KIMINTET “E” yet they used the same procedure in the adjudication of KIMINTET “C” and “D”.
49. In conclusion therefore, the Interested Parties sought the Court to dismiss the present JR application with costs.
50. The Court after the close of the pleadings directed the parties herein to prepare, file and exchange submissions in support of their individual arguments.
51. The Ex-parte Applicants in compliance filed their submissions on the 30.06.2023, the Respondents filed their submissions on 30.11.2023 while the Interested parties filed their submissions on 27.07.2023.
52. Indeed, this Honourable Court has carefully perused the pleadings herein, the exhibits attached to the affidavits and the submissions filed herein and identifies the following issues for determination; -

ISSUE NO. 1- DID THE 1^ST RESPONDENT ACT ULTRA VIRES & WITHOUT AUTHORITY IN THE CREATION AND PUBLICATION OF KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION ON THE 6^TH OF FEBRUARY 2020?

ISSUE NO. 2- DID THE 1^ST RESPONDENT DENY THE 1^ST & 2^ND EX-PARTE APPLICANTS A CHANCE TO BE HEARD BEFORE APPOINTING THE 1^ST -13^TH INTERESTED PARTIES AS THE LAND ADJUDICATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS ON THE 7^TH OF JULY 2020?

ISSUE NO.3- ARE THE EX-PARTE APPLICANTS ENTITLED TO THE PRAYERS SOUGHT IN THE PRESENT JR APPLICATION?

ISSUE NO.4- WHO BEARS THE COSTS OF THE PRESENT JR APPLICATION?

1. The Court having identified the above issues for determination, the same will now be discussed as follows; -

ISSUE NO. 1- DID THE 1^ST RESPONDENT ACT ULTRA VIRES & WITHOUT AUTHORITY IN THE CREATION AND PUBLICATION OF KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION ON THE 6^TH OF FEBRUARY 2020?

1. The first issue that has been raised by the Ex-parte Applicants in the present JR application is the creation and publication of KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION on the 6^th of February 2020.
2. The first aspect to this issue being raised by the Ex-parte applicants is that the area demarcated for adjudication as KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION was already demarcated for Adjudication in the Publication done on the 29^th October 1986 as KIMINTET ADJUDICATION SECTION.
3. Consequently therefore, the 1^st Respondents action of publishing the Declaration dated 6^th February 2020 was ultra vires and without authority and should therefore be quashed as there was no land capable of being adjudicated under the KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION.
4. The 1^st Respondent on the other hand opposed this line of argument by stating that the declaration published on the 29^th October 1986 was actually recalled and/or amended by two other declarations of KIMINTET “A” and KIMINTET “B” ADJUDICATION SECTIONS published on the same date 29^th October 1986.
5. According to the 1^st Respondent’s pleadings, the Notice of Declaration relating to KIMINTET “B” ADJUDICATION SECTION specifically indicated that it supersedes the Notice of Declaration relating to KIMINTET ADJUDICATION SECTION earlier issued.
6. In essence therefore, the area initially declared as KIMINTET ADJUDICATION SECTION in the Notice No. LA.9/4/13/139 had been amended by the subsequent Declarations under Notice LA.9/4/108 creating KIMINTET “A” and Notice LA.9/4/144 creating KIMINTET “B” ADJUDICATION SECTIONS.
7. The effect of publishing the Declaration Notices LA.9/4/108 and LA.9/4/144 was to adjudicate the original KIMINTET ADJUDICATION SECTION declared under Notice LA.9/4/13/139 in different sections and not as one wholistic adjudication section.
8. To reinforce the above intention, the 1^st Respondent has placed before the Court other declarations of KIMINTET “C” AND KIMINTET “D” which were published through Notices LA/9/4/154 dated 5^th May 1989 and LA/9/4/157 dated 2^nd July 1990.
9. In essence therefore, the publication of KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION on the 6^th of February 2020 in the Notice No. LA/TM/9/2/10 was in line with the decision made on 29^th of October 1986 with a view of finalizing the Adjudication of the entire land within had been earmarked for adjudication in the Notice No. LA.9/4/13/139.
10. The Interested parties have also supported the creation and publication of KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION done on the 6^th of February 2020 by stating that the residents within this portion of land contained in the original KIMINTET ADJUDICATION SECTION published on the 29^th of October 1986 are desirous of having their rights ascertained and registered through issuance of Certificate of Titles.
11. It was on the basis of this agitation that the office of the 1^st Respondent published the declaration of KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION on the 6^th of February 2020 under Notice No. LA/TM/9/2/10.
12. The Interested parties therefore supported the 1^st Respondent’s decision to create KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION to administer the same with a view of issuing titles to the residents of this portion.
13. To resolve this aspect, the fundamental question is whether the Declaration published on the 29^th October 1986 as Notice No. LA.9/4/13/139 is still legal and binding up to date or not.
14. All the parties herein admit to the publication of two other Declarations on the same date 29^th October 1986 under Notices LA.9/4/108 and LA.9/4/144.
15. These two declarations made under Notices LA.9/4/108 and LA.9/4/144 created two Adjudication sections known as KIMINTET “A” and KIMINTET “B” ADJUDICATION SECTIONS.
16. The Respondents and the Interested parties have pleaded that KIMINTET “A” and KIMINTET “B” ADJUDICATION SECTIONS were part of the original KIMINTET ADJUCATION SECTION which had been declared through the Notice NO. LA.9/4/13/139.
17. The Notice No.LA.9/4/144 published on the 29^th of October 144 specifically stated as follows; -

“This Notice supersedes my notice ref.no.LA.9/4/13/139 dated 29^th October 1986.”

1. The use of the word “supersedes” by the 1^st Respondent in the Notice No.LA.9/4/144 is of utmost importance as it clarifies the legal status of the Notice No.LA/9/4/13/139 that had earlier been published to create KIMINTET ADJUDICATION SECTION.
2. The simple meaning of the word “supersedes” is that the contents of the Notice No. LA.9/4/144 had become the legal position and the Notice No. LA/9/4/13/139 had been repealed.
3. In essence therefore, the area demarcated as KIMINTET ADJUDICATION SECTION under Notice No. LA/9/3/4/13/139 dated 26^th October 1986 could be re-demarcated into different Adjudication Sections as declared in the Notices No. LA.9/4/108 and LA.9/4/144 published on the same date 29^th October 1986 as KIMINTET “A” AND KIMINTET “B” ADJUDICATION SECTION.
4. It is important to point one significant position that the Respondents have stated in Paragraph 21 of the Replying Affidavit dated 17.12.2020.
5. The Respondents specifically pleaded that the repealing of the Notice No. LA/9/3/4/13/139 did not invalidate the declaration by the minister of land to the effect that KIMINTET SUB-LOCATION was Trust Land capable of now being adjudicated under the Land Adjudication Act.
6. Indeed, the Minister under Section 3 of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap 284 is authorized in law to declare a specific area to be Trust Land and therefore the Commissioner of Land can administer the same through the Land Adjudication Act.
7. The area in the original Notice No.LA/9/3/4/13/139 dated 29^th October 1986 had indeed been declared trust land and therefore even after the repealing of the said Notice No. LA/9/3/4/13/139 by the 1^st Respondent, new Adjudication declarations could be made as long as they are confined to the area gazetted by the Minister under Section 3 of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap 284 to be Trust Land.
8. Section 5 of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap 284 provides as follows; -

“(5)(1) The Adjudication officer shall by notice either; -

1. Establish adjudication sections within the Adjudication area;
2. Establish the whole adjudication area as an adjudication section.
3. The interpretation of this Section in the Land Adjudication Act, Cap 284 is that the 1^st Respondent has a discretion to either declare the entire Area declared by the Minister as Trust Land to be one Adjudication Section or in the alternative, declare portions of the said Area to be Adjudication Sections.
4. Both methodologies of administering the area declared as Trust Land by the Minister is lawful and legitimate.
5. In this instant case, the 1^st Respondent through the Notice No. LA.9/4/13/139 created the entire area declared as Trust Land by the Minister as one ADJUDICATION SECTION known as KIMINTET ADJUDICATION SECTION.
6. However, in the subsequent Notices No. LA.9/4/108 and LA.9/4/144 again published on the same date, the 1^st Respondent changed the manner in which he wanted to administer the area declared as Trust Land by the minister by establishing various Adjudications Sections as opposed to having one Adjudication Section as contained in the Notice No. 9/4/13/139 earlier published.
7. The 1^st Respondent’s decision to administer the entire KIMINTET SUB-LOCATION of Siria Location in various Adjudication Sections is a lawful procedure provided under the Land Adjudication Section once the Minister has declared the said KIMINTET SUB-LOCATION as an Adjudication Area and therefore the allegation that the office of the 1^st Respondent acted ultra vires and unlawfully is not merited.
8. The Ex-parte Applicants have also pleaded in the present JR Application that there was no Petition presented by the residents of KIMINTET SUB-LOCATION to the Minister seeking for the establishment of KIMINTET “E” as an Adjudication Section.
9. As such, the creation and/or establishment of KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION by the 1^st Respondent was done without giving them an opportunity to be heard before the contents of the Notice No.LA.9/4/13/139 dated 29^th October 1986 would be altered.
10. Section 5 of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap 284 does not provide for any participation of the public in the establishment of any Adjudication Section within an Adjudication Area by the 1^st Respondent.
11. The exercise that the public is required to participate or can Petition the Minister is the process of creating and/or having an area declared as Trust Land under Section 3 of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap 284.
12. During the exercise of establishing an area to be Trust Land, the Minister is required to receive and/or determine the description and/or the reference of the area with the participation of the public, residents of the area and/or petitions filed before him.
13. In other words, this Court hereby makes a finding that the declaration of KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION on the 6^th of February 2020 under Notice No. LA/TM/9/2/10 by the 1^st Respondent was lawful and with the legal authority vested under Section 5 (1) (a) of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap 284.

ISSUE NO. 2- DID THE 1^ST RESPONDENT DENY THE 1^ST & 2^ND EX-PARTE APPLICANTS A CHANCE TO BE HEARD BEFORE APPOINTING THE 1^ST -13^TH INTERESTED PARTIES AS THE LAND ADJUDICATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS ON THE 7^TH OF JULY 2020?

1. The second issue for determination in this present JR Application is whether the 1^st Respondents failed to give the Ex-parte Applicants an opportunity to be heard contrary to the Fair Administrative Actions Act and the Constitution, 2010 before appointing the 1^st to 13^th Interested Parties as Land Adjudication Committee members of KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION.
2. The Ex-parte Applicants position is that on the 7^th of July 2020, the 1^st Respondent appointed the 1^st to 13^th Interested Parties as members of the Land Adjudication Committee of KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION without giving them an opportunity to be heard as members of the Land Adjudication Committee that was appointed on the 13^th of March 1989 to adjudicate on the entire KIMINTET “B” ADJUDICATION SECTION.
3. The Ex-parte Applicants are of the view after the creation of KIMINTET “A” ADJUDICATION SECTION, the remaining area within KIMINTET SUB-LOCATION which was originally KIMINTET ADJUDICATION SECTION was subsequently declared as KIMINTET “B” ADJUDICATION SECTION.
4. In essence therefore, the Land Adjudication Committee appointed on the 13^th March 1989 to administer the entire KIMINTET “B” ADJUDICATION SECTION was the legitimate committee to also adjudicate the new KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION which was a portion of the KIMINTET “B” ADJUDICATION SECTION.
5. By extension, if the 1^st Respondent needed to change the membership of the Land Adjudication Committee established on the 13^th of March 1989, then he/she was required to at least give an opportunity to the Ex-parte Applicants to be heard before any changes would be made therein.
6. The Respondents on the other hand opposed this line of argument on the basis that members of an Adjudication Section are appointed in accordance to the establishment of the different Adjudication Sections.
7. The Respondents pleaded that the Land Adjudication Committee appointed on the 7^th July 2020 was specifically for KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION based on the Public Baraza held on the 6^th February 2020.
8. The Respondents further stated that the persons who are appointed to the Land Adjudication Committee are elected by the residents and/or persons living within the area of adjudication.
9. The Interested Parties also stated that indeed after the establishment of KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION, the 1^st Respondent held a Public Baraza on the 6^th of February 2020 and the persons named as Interested Parties were elected as members of the Land Adjudication Committee.
10. The Interested Parties categorically stated that the Public Baraza was attended by over 400 residents as well as local leaders and produced the minutes of the said Public Baraza.
11. Section 6 (1) of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap 284 states as follows; -

“In respect of each adjudication section, the adjudication officer, after consultation with the District Commissioner of the district within which the adjudication section lies, shall appoint not less than ten persons resident within the adjudication section to be the adjudication committee for that adjudication section”

1. This proviso of the Act therefore requires the 1^st Respondent to appoint a new Land Adjudication Committee every time a new Adjudication Section is established under Section 5 of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap 284.
2. The Land Adjudication Committee must be one of persons who are resident within the Adjudication Section.
3. In this particular case, the Ex-parte Applicants were Land Adjudication Committee members of KIMINTET “B” ADJUDICATION SECTION only.
4. If the 1^st Respondent was to make any changes in the composition of the Land Adjudication Committee of KIMINTET “B” ADJUDICATION SECTION, then the Ex-parte Applicants would be entitled to a hearing under the Fair Administrative Actions Act and Article 47 and 50 of the Kenyan Constitution, 2010.
5. However, in this instance, the appointment done on the 7^th of July 2020 was in relation to KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION which was distinct and different from KIMINTET “B” ADJUDICATION SECTION.
6. As such, the 1^st Respondent was obligated by Section 6(1) of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap 284 to appoint new Land Adjudication Committee members for the specific KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION.
7. There is no legal basis either in law and/or procedure for the 1^st Respondent to invite the Ex-parte Applicants for a hearing under the Fair Administrative Actions Act and/or the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 while appointing the Land Adjudication Committee members of KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION.
8. If the Ex-parte Applicants were interested in being appointed to the Land Adjudication Committee of KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION, they would have simply attended the Public Baraza held on the 6^th of February 2020 and upon confirming themselves to be residents of the area, present themselves for election to the said committee.
9. Consequently therefore, the presumption by the Ex-parte Applicants that members of the Land Adjudication Committee in KIMINTET “B” ADJUDICATION SECTION had an automatic membership in the Land Adjudication Committee of KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION is by all means misguided and unfounded.
10. In essence therefore, the Ex-parte Applicants have not proved any legal and/or procedural requirement either under the Land Adjudication Act, Cap 284, the Fair Administration Action Act and/or Article 47 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 that was violated by the 1^st Respondent in the process of electing and/or appointing the Land Adjudication Committee members of KIMINTET “E” ADJUDICATION SECTION.

ISSUE NO.3- ARE THE EX-PARTE APPLICANTS ENTITLED TO THE PRAYERS SOUGHT IN THE PRESENT JR APPLICATION?

1. The third issue for determination is whether or not the Ex-parte Applicants are entitled to the prayers sought in the present JR Application.
2. Based on the determinations in Issues 1 and 2 hereinabove, this Honourable Court is of the considered finding that the prayers sought in the present JR Application are not merited and cannot be granted.

ISSUE NO.4- WHO BEARS THE COSTS OF THE PRESENT JR APPLICATION?

1. On the issue of costs, the settled rule is that costs follow the event.
2. In the present JR Application, the Ex-parte Applicants have not been successful and therefore will also bear the costs of the said litigation.

CONCLUSION.

1. In conclusion therefore, this Court hereby makes the following Orders as appertains the Notice of Motion Application dated 10^th August 2020; -
2. THE NOTICE OF MOTION DATED 10^TH AUGUST 2020 IS NOT MERITED AND THEREFORE DISMISSED FORTHWITH.
3. THE EX-PARTE APPLICANTS WILL BEAR THE COSTS OF THIS APPLICATION.

DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED Virtually in KILGORIS ELC Court on 12^TH MARCH 2024.

IN THE PRESENCE OF:

COURT ASSISTANT: MR. NGENO

ADVOCATE FOR THE EX-PARTE APPLICANT: MS. NAAZI H/B

       KITHI

ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS: FATUMA (N/A)

ADVOCATE FOR THE INTERESTED PARTIES: MS. MIRERI