A legal battle has unfolded at the High Court after National Land Commission (NLC) Commissioner Tiyah Galgalo accused the agency of obtaining a questionable consent order to compensate her for the premature termination of her constitutional tenure.
In her fresh court filings, Ms Galgalo alleges the NLC colluded with a petitioner to secure a September 30, 2025 consent judgment from the Nairobi Employment and Labour Relations Court that would effectively end her term, set to expire December 2026, without due process.
The disputed order originated from a petition filed by Fredrick Mukali against the NLC, its CEO Kabale Tache and Attorney-General Dorcas Oduor regarding commissioners’ recruitment.
Mr Mukali’s petition concerned President William Ruto’s decision to initiate the recruitment of a new set of eight commissioners, because the term of the current team ends next month.
He argued that the terms of two of the commissioners were ending in December 2026, hence it was wrong for the recruitment panel to announce there were eight positions to be filled.
Though he did not name the two commissioners, public records show it was Ms Galgalo and former Nyeri Town MP Esther Murugi. He differed with the PSC call that the terms will lapse in November 2025, triggering fresh interviews.
However, the petition was terminated through the contested consent order. While presented as a mutual agreement, Ms Galgalo contends she was excluded from proceedings despite being directly affected.
"This was a simulated exercise designed to circumvent constitutional safeguards," Ms Galgalo states in her affidavit replying to the commission’s application for dismissal of her case.
She notes that the Labour Relations court lacked jurisdiction over disputes related to members of independent commissions, as per a binding Court of Appeal precedent of 2020.
The contested consent order read: “By consent of the parties, the two commissioners who were sworn in at a later date shall have their dues paid in full and the process of such payments shall commence forthwith. The recruitment process shall proceed.”
Ms Galgalo’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Fred Ngatia, revealed startling irregularities in the dispute, stating that no replying affidavits were filed in the original petition and that the Attorney-General, who was named a respondent, played no active role.
He adds that the consent was recorded unusually quickly and without the involvement of Ms Galgalo, despite directly affecting her office tenure.
"The inclusion of the AG was merely to hoodwink the court," Mr Ngatia argued, alleging the NLC and the petitioner conspired to create an artificial vacancy.
He claimed that the Petition was crafted deliberately at the behest of the NLC with the knowledge that the two Commissioners had a legal right to their full statutory term in office.
“The filing and subsequent hurried consent was done notwithstanding that I was never involved and/or enjoined, despite the fact that it was my remaining term of office which was in issue. Neither the purported Petitioner nor NLC was acting on my behalf. Both were co-conspirators to abridge and/or curtail my term of office,” said Ms Galgalo.
“At no time did I seek any compensation in lieu of serving my remaining term of office. c) That the orders made by "consent" without jurisdiction”. At stake in the legal dispute is the security of tenure for constitutional officeholders. Ms Galgalo maintains that her six-year term, confirmed in her December 2020 appointment letter, cannot be truncated without lawful cause.
She initially filed her own case at the Labour Relations Court but withdrew it upon discovering the jurisdictional conflict, promptly refiling in the High Court, a move the NLC now characterizes as "forum shopping."
Lawyer Ngatia insists that the six-year term of his client is set to end in December 2026, and the same cannot be cut short without due process. The NLC, however, insists the recruitment process should proceed, citing the contested consent order.
Mr Ngatia dismissed this as a backdoor maneuver, arguing that the Labour Court’s orders were null and void.
He contends that allowing the NLC’s application would create constitutional confusion on the jurisdiction of the two courts –the High Court and Labour Court.
"The balance of convenience, public interest, and the rule of law weighs in favour of preserving the status quo," Ms Galgalo asserted, urging the court to dismiss the NLC’s application.
The High Court is expected to rule on whether to uphold its earlier conservatory orders blocking Ms Galgalo’s replacement pending the petition’s determination. The case is set to be mentioned on October 23, 2025, before Justice Chacha Mwita.
