The High Court has dismissed a case that sought clarification on the mandate of the National Land Commission (NLC), ruling that the matter had already been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court. The court invoked the doctrine of res judicata, emphasizing that issues already addressed by a higher court cannot be reopened in subsequent proceedings.
At the center of the case was a petition that questioned the extent of the NLC’s powers, particularly in relation to the Ministry of Lands. The applicant had argued that the commission required further judicial interpretation of its role, especially concerning land registration, management, and related functions.
In its ruling, the court made it clear that the Supreme Court had already issued a binding advisory opinion outlining the distinct responsibilities of the two institutions. The apex court had clarified that while the NLC has a mandate over land management, this authority does not extend to land registration, title issuance, or fragmentation of land — functions that remain strictly under the Ministry of Lands.
The judgment stressed that under Article 262 of the Constitution and the Land Act, the term “management” must be understood within its defined legal framework. Extending this interpretation to include registration or titling would not only be unconstitutional but also risk creating administrative confusion in Kenya’s land governance structure.
The presiding judge observed that allowing the petition to proceed would, in effect, amount to the High Court reviewing a decision of the Supreme Court, which is impermissible under the Constitution. The judge added that clarity had already been achieved through the Supreme Court’s earlier interpretation, and any further litigation on the same issue would undermine judicial efficiency and the principle of finality in legal proceedings.
By dismissing the case, the High Court reaffirmed the boundaries set between the NLC and the Ministry of Lands. The ruling reinforces the legal position that the commission is tasked with oversight and management functions, such as land allocation and compensation for compulsory acquisition, while the Ministry retains authority over registration and administration of land titles.
The decision is expected to settle any lingering uncertainty and provide a firm basis for land governance moving forward. It also serves as a reminder that constitutional and statutory interpretation by the Supreme Court stands as the ultimate legal reference point for all other courts and institutions.
