The High Court has ruled that the National Land Commission’s work on historical land injustices cannot be tied to any deadlines set by Parliament, stating that lawmakers overstepped their mandate by trying to narrow a power granted directly by the Constitution.
The decision stems from a petition filed by activist and Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah, who challenged amendments that attempted to give the NLC a one-year window to reach determinations and three years to carry out remedies in matters involving past land crimes.
The court agreed with him that these timelines had no constitutional basis and would interfere with the Commission’s role.
"It was not for Parliament to limit the period. This is to undermine the mandate of a constitutional body when the Constitution itself does not set timelines," the court ruled.
Omtatah told the court that the amendments were crafted in a way that would make it nearly impossible for many victims to be heard, especially with the NLC facing years of underfunding and an overwhelming number of pending cases.
He also faulted earlier attempts to impose strict limits, including a previously introduced 10-year restriction, saying such moves had always worked against people searching for justice.
Justice Chacha Mwita, while delivering the ruling, said the country’s Constitution must be understood as a flexible and evolving document. He noted that the duty of the court is to interpret its provisions in a manner that protects each institution’s purpose, explaining that they must “interpret but not destroy each other.”
He found that Section 14(9) of the Amendment was invalid because it imposed limits that the Constitution does not require. According to the judge, the NLC’s responsibility to review long-standing land complaints and recommend solutions is not capped by any period under the Constitution.
The court further pointed out that Section 15, which covers injustices dating back to 1895 until August 2010, does not set any deadline for filing or completing such claims, showing that Parliament had no grounding to introduce fixed timeframes.
The judge added that lawmakers do not have authority under Article 67(e) to pass laws that restrict or expand the NLC’s constitutional powers, stressing that any attempt to do so weakens the framework set out in the Constitution.
With that finding, the court struck down the Amendment Act to the extent that it sought to narrow the Commission’s work on historical land injustice claims, ruling that the NLC must continue to operate without artificial limits placed by Parliament.
