Environment and Land Court Declines to Halt National Land Commission Recommendations in Kakuzi Historical Land Injustice Matter

The Environment and Land Court at Murang’a has delivered an important ruling in Kakuzi PLC v National Land Commission & Others, ELC Miscellaneous Application No. E026 of 2025, concerning recommendations made by the National Land Commission in respect of historical land injustice claims within the Kakuzi area.

1. The ruling was delivered by Hon. Justice M.N. Gicheru in respect of Kakuzi PLC’s Chamber Summons dated 19 November 2025. The application sought leave to commence judicial review proceedings against the National Land Commission’s recommendations published in the Kenya Gazette. The application was brought under, among other provisions, the Fair Administrative Action Act, the National Land Commission Act, and Articles 10, 40, 47 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya.
2. Chimei & Malenya Co. Advocates represented members of the affected displaced communities, specifically the 6th Respondent, Kituamba Kaloleni IDPs, and the 7th Respondent, Milimani Community.

The application by Kakuzi PLC

1. Kakuzi PLC sought, among other orders, leave to apply for certiorari to quash or cancel the National Land Commission recommendations published in the Gazette Notice of 17 November 2025, relating to claim numbers NLC/HLI/006/2017, NLC/HLI/168/2018, NLC/HLI/580/2019 and NLC/HLI/3718/2021.
2. Kakuzi PLC also sought leave to apply for prohibition to restrain implementation of the recommendations by the Ministry of Lands, Public Works, Housing and Urban Development, through the Directorate of Land Adjudication and Settlement, and the Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement. It further sought declarations that the recommendations were unlawful, made in excess of jurisdiction, and contrary to constitutional and statutory provisions.
3. In addition, Kakuzi PLC sought stay, conservatory or temporary interdict orders halting implementation of the recommendations pending the proposed judicial review proceedings. It also sought restraining orders against members, representatives, servants, agents and assigns of the 5^th  to 8^th Respondents from entering, occupying, farming, constructing on, surveying, developing or otherwise interfering with L.R. No. 11674 and L.R. No. 19731.

The National Land Commission recommendations

1. The Court noted that the 5^th  to 8^th Respondents had filed historical land injustice claims before the National Land Commission, and that Kakuzi PLC had filed responses and participated in the proceedings.
2. The National Land Commission recommendations, as recorded in the ruling, included that Kakuzi PLC surrenders approximately 3,200 acres to settle the most vulnerable members of the claimants as a final settlement of claims against Kakuzi PLC. The recommendations also included vetting, profiling and settlement of vulnerable members by the relevant state agencies.
3. The recommendations further included regularization of settlement schemes within Kakuzi land, documentation and regularization of public utilities, relocation of schools and public utilities with access challenges or provision of proper access roads, regularization of surrendered land to the County Government of Murang’a, and surrender of at least 50 acres for public purposes.

The communities’ position

1. The Court recorded that the 6^th  Respondent, through its Chairman Mutavi Matheka, stated that it comprised approximately 188 members living at Ndula Settlement Scheme as internally displaced persons. The 6^th Respondent’s case was that its members were evicted from ancestral land in 1989 and 1990, rendered landless, and displaced without compensation, resettlement or an alternative remedy.
2. The 6^th Respondent further maintained that Kakuzi PLC had fully participated in the National Land Commission process, and that the process was transparent, inclusive and consistent with fairness and natural justice.
3. The Court also recorded that the 7^th Respondent, through its Chairman Samuel Ndata, stated that the 7^th Respondent comprised approximately 2,000 families whose forefathers occupied the suit land before colonial alienation. The 7^th Respondent’s position was that the National Land Commission conducted investigations fairly and that Kakuzi PLC had an opportunity to participate, file responses and be heard.

The Court’s findings

1. The Court found that the National Land Commission did not act outside its jurisdiction under Section 15 of the National Land Commission Act. It held that the claims by the 5^th , 6^th  and 7^th Respondents concerned ancestral land allegedly taken by the colonial government in the early 20^th century, and that the claims met the statutory test under Section 15.
2. The Court further held that the National Land Commission has power under Section 15 to investigate historical land injustice claims and to make recommendations, including restitution, compensation, resettlement and other forms of redress.
3. The Court also rejected the argument that the recommendations were invalid because the Gazette Notice was published on 17^th  November 2025. The Court found that no evidence had been placed before it to prove that the tenure of the National Land Commission had ended on 14^th November 2025. It also noted that the Gazette Notice itself was dated 14^th  November 2025 and that the National Land Commission is a permanent commission.
4. On the allegation of bias or bad faith, the Court found no evidence against the National Land Commission. The Court observed that the determination was approximately 31 pages long and that about 14 pages contained material from Kakuzi PLC, which the Court considered inconsistent with the allegation of bias and consistent with a fair hearing.
5. The Court ultimately found that Kakuzi PLC had not demonstrated that the procedure under the Fair Administrative Action Act or the National Land Commission Act had not been followed. It also found that Kakuzi PLC had not shown that the determination was without merit.
6. Consequently, the Court declined to grant leave to commence judicial review proceedings. It also declined to issue stay, conservatory or temporary interdict orders halting implementation of the National Land Commission determination. The Chamber Summons dated 19^th November 2025 was dismissed, with costs awarded to the 5^th, 6^th and 7^th  Respondents.

Implications for the affected communities

1. The ruling is a significant procedural milestone for the affected communities. It means that, at this stage, the National Land Commission recommendations have not been quashed, suspended or stayed. They remain in force.
2. The ruling is also significant because the Court affirmed the National Land Commission’s jurisdiction under Section 15 of the National Land Commission Act to investigate historical land injustice claims and recommend appropriate redress.
3. However, the ruling does not, by itself, complete implementation of the National Land Commission recommendations. Implementation must still proceed lawfully, transparently and through the relevant public institutions. For the communities, the next phase should involve structured engagement with the relevant state agencies.
4. It is equally important that the implementation process is hinged on the strength of the communities’ position in lawful engagement, proper documentation, transparency and disciplined institutional follow-up.
5. For the 6^th  and 7^th  Respondents represented by Chimei & Malenya Co. Advocates, the ruling is an important affirmation of their participation in Kenya’s formal historical land injustice framework as supported by the KHRC.
6. At Chimei & Malenya Co. Advocates, we remain committed to principled, evidence-based and institutionally grounded advocacy in matters involving land justice, constitutional accountability and community rights.