Kenyans seeking justice over historical land injustices have received new hope to pursue their claims after the High Court’s new ruling on the National Land Commission (NLC).
The landmark ruling was issued in the case Okiya Omtatah Okoiti v Attorney General & Others, where Justice Chacha Mwita held that Parliament cannot restrict constitutional powers granted to an independent commission through ordinary legislation.
The decision now removes barriers that had limited the period within which the NLC could investigate historical land grievances and review the legality of public land grants.
Court Strikes Down Five-Year Deadline on Public Land Reviews
In its judgment delivered on November 28, 2025, the High Court ruling by Justice Mwita found that Section 14(1) of the National Land Commission Act was inconsistent with the Constitution since it required NLC to review grants and dispositions of public land within five years from the commencement of the Act.
Also Read: High Court Stops Construction of Airstrip, State Lodge and Golf Course in Imenti Forest
The court ruled that the constitutional mandate given to the Commission under Article 67(2)(e) of the Constitution to review grants and dispositions of public land to establish their propriety or legality was not intended to operate within a limited period.
Justice Mwita stated that the function was not a one-time responsibility but an ongoing constitutional duty.
The court further held that Section 14(9) of the Act, which allowed Parliament to extend the period for reviewing public land allocations, was also unconstitutional.
“The function of reviewing grants and depositions is not a one-off function at least not from the language of the Constitution. Second, section 14(9) is inconsistent with the Constitution in purporting to confer on Parliament discretion to extend the mandate of NLC to review grants or depositions of public land to determine their propriety or legality since this function is not tied to a period of time and therefore cannot be limited by legislative subterfuge,” read the ruling in part.
According to the court, Parliament could not create a situation where a constitutional mandate depended on legislative extensions because the Constitution itself did not impose such restrictions.
Historical Land Claims Remain Open After Court Decision
The High Court also invalidated Section 15(3)(e) of the National Land Commission Act, which required historical land injustice claims to be submitted within five years after the Act came into force.
Justice Mwita found that the provision undermined the NLC’s constitutional responsibility to investigate both present and historical land injustices either on its own initiative or following a complaint.
The court held that imposing deadlines would effectively weaken a constitutional provision and prevent affected communities from seeking redress.
He noted that historical land injustices cannot be restricted through legislation when the Constitution did not place such limitations on the Commission’s mandate.
The decision provides an opportunity for individuals, families and communities who had previously been unable to pursue claims due to expired statutory timelines to approach the NLC for consideration.
Also Read: Court Rules Private Land Cannot Be Declared a Public Access Road Without Evidence
Court Upholds Three-Year Period for Implementing Recommendations
While striking down some sections of the law, the High Court upheld Section 15(10) of the National Land Commission Act, which requires authorities to act on recommendations made by the NLC within three years.
However, the court clarified that the three-year period does not invalidate or cancel recommendations if they are not implemented within that timeframe.
The judge explained that the provision was meant to encourage timely action rather than create an expiry period for decisions made by the Commission.
The court also ruled that the repeal of Section 15 of the Act does not affect the NLC’s constitutional mandate to investigate and recommend remedies for historical land injustices.
“A purposive reading of the section can only mean that recommendations must be acted upon expeditious, without delay and within 3 years. The decision or recommendation can still be acted upon even after the three years since it is an enforceable decision. The section is constitutionally valid,”read the ruling in part.
Follow our WhatsApp Channel and X Account for real-time news updates.
