Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the judgment (E&LC suit, Nakuru)· [2017] KEELC 3466 (KLR)

Daudi Leche Rono & 749 others v Woragus Limited & 6 others [2017] KEELC 3466 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 February 2017
MSMunyao Sila
6,149 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~25 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nakuru court kept everyone on Ol Pejeta/Mutara Ranch land as they are for now, declining to evict anyone until the full case on public land leases is heard.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This interlocutory ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru (Munyao Sila, J) dealt with competing injunction applications in a suit by 750 plaintiffs, mostly Samburu pastoralists, claiming historical, community and pastoral tenure over LR No. 10069 (Mutara Ranch), a Special Farm under the ADC (Special Farms) Rules, 2001. The plaintiffs challenged leases granted by the Agricultural Development Corporation and Lands Limited, including a 15,000-acre lease to the 1st defendant, arguing the disposal of Special Farm land required prior Parliamentary approval under Rule 2 of the Special Farms Rules, and sought declarations, injunctions, access to pasture, water and salt licks, and damages. The defendants, including the 1st defendant which had invested over Kshs. 200 million, the ADC and Lands Limited (who admitted leasing 32,000 acres), Lawangiro Camel Farms' directors (6th and 7th defendants in occupation since 2010), and the Chief Land Registrar and Inspector General, opposed the applications and some filed counterclaims seeking the plaintiffs' eviction. The court declined to determine finally whether Parliamentary approval is required, holding that question must await full trial, but found the point arguable and noted any member of the public may raise disposal of public land as a public interest issue. Preserving the subject matter, the court maintained the status quo: the 1st defendant retains exclusive possession of its leased 15,000 acres; ADC continues managing the unleased portion without new dispositions; the position of the 6th and 7th defendants continues. The court ordered all plaintiffs to file verifying affidavits or annex written authority within 14 days, failing which the suit risks striking out, and directed the 2nd and 3rd defendants to disclose all leases within 14 days. Costs were left to each party, and the suit was fast-tracked given the public importance of the public land at stake.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leases of ADC Special Farm land require Parliamentary approval

Holding

The point is arguable and left for full trial; a lease would ordinarily qualify as a disposition under the Special Farms Rules

Reasoning

The court declined to make a final determination at interlocutory stage, noting the Special Farm Rules require prior parliamentary approval for any disposition, while defendants argued section 13 of the ADC Act empowers ADC to lease and the Rules' limitation applies only to sale and purchase. The court found the point arguable and left it for trial.

p. 8
02

Preservation of the suit land pending trial

Holding

Status quo maintained: 1st defendant keeps exclusive possession of its 15,000 acres; ADC retains unleased land without new dispositions; 6th/7th defendants' status quo continues

Reasoning

Balancing the competing claims, the court noted the 1st defendant enjoys a lease, occupation and massive investment, Lawangiro has been in occupation since 2010, and the 2nd and 3rd defendants admitted leasing 32,000 acres, while the question of the leases' legality remains for trial.

p. 8
03

Competency of the suit for want of authority

Holding

The point is valid but the court gave 14 days to rectify rather than strike out

Reasoning

There was only one verifying affidavit sworn by the 1st plaintiff without annexed authority from the other 749 plaintiffs. The court cited precedent on the mandatory nature of written authority but exercised discretion to allow rectification within 14 days, reserving the right to strike out on failure.

p. 9
04

Joinder of proper parties to the leases

Holding

6th and 7th defendants hold no lease; Lawangiro Camel Farms Limited is the proper party; all other lessees to be disclosed

Reasoning

The court found the 6th and 7th defendants were merely directors of Lawangiro Camel Farms Limited, the actual lessee, and that other leases to unnamed entities existed which the 2nd and 3rd defendants had not displayed. It ordered disclosure so the plaintiffs could decide whom to add as parties.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • Injunction applications require a decision on how best the subject matter is preserved pending trial, not a mechanical ticking of the Giella principles
  • Any member of the public may raise the question of disposal of public land as a matter of public interest without showing special interest
  • Written authority must be annexed where a party sues or swears documents on behalf of others

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Status quo maintained: 1st defendant entitled to exclusive possession of the 15,000 acres leased to it pending hearing and determination of the case
  2. 2.ADC to manage the unleased portion of the land as before and not to enter into any additional lease or other disposition pending hearing
  3. 3.Status quo in the portion under the 6th and 7th defendants' direction to continue pending hearing and determination
  4. 4.All plaintiffs to file verifying affidavits within 14 days, or Daudi Leche Rono to file written authority to swear affidavits and file documents on their behalf, failing which the court reserved the right to strike out the suit
  5. 5.2nd and 3rd defendants to disclose all leases they hold and file and serve copies on plaintiffs' counsel within 14 days
  6. 6.Each party to bear their own costs
  7. 7.Suit fast-tracked for hearing as a matter of immense public importance

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Agricultural Development Corporation (Special Farms) Rules, 2001Rules 2, 3 and Schedule
  • Agricultural Development Corporation Act, Cap 444Sections 12, 13, 20
  • Land ActSections 12(1), 36(1)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 42
  • Environmental Management and Coordination Act
  • Public Procurement and Disposal Act
  • Government Proceedings ActSection 13A
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 1 Rule 13 (and former Order 1 Rule 12); Order 4 Rule 1(3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Giella vs Cassman Brown
    (1973) EA 358
  • Ndungu Mugoya & 473 Others vs Stephen Wangombe & 9 Others
    Nakuru HCCC No. 142 of 2005 (2005) eKLR
  • John Kariuki & 347 Others vs John Mungai Njoroge & 8 Others
    Nakuru HCCC No. 152 of 2003 (unreported)
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over land in Laikipia County; suit by way of plaint filed 6 April 2016

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Daudi Leche Rono & 749 others v Woragus Limited & 6 others [2017] KEELC 3466 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in the judgment (E&LC suit, Nakuru). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/3466/eng@2017-02-16

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.