Thiririka Self Help Group v Nyandarua County Assembly & another [2018] KEELC 2194 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court struck out the petition because it never clearly stated which constitutional rights were violated and how.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Capacity of counsel to represent the 1st Respondent
The Preliminary Objection to the 1st Respondent's legal representation fails; Section 43 of the County Government Act is permissive and the counsel was properly on record
Section 43 provides that a county government 'may' request the Attorney-General to represent it, which is not mandatory, leaving room for representation of its own choice. The counsel's letter of appointment expressly tasked him with representing the County Assembly in court. The objection is a mere technicality which cannot prevail over substantive justice and public interest, and is dismissed.
Whether the Petition disclosed a constitutional violation
The Petition is fatally defective: it failed to plead with reasonable precision the constitutional rights infringed and the manner of infringement, and was struck out
Relying on the Anarita Karimi Njeru principle as restated in Mumo Matemu and Stephen Njuguna, the court held that a party invoking Articles 22 and 23 must identify the specific provisions of the Bill of Rights infringed and show how. From the title and heading of the Petition no right infringed was disclosed, and it could not be ascertained what rights were contravened and in what way.
Entitlement to reliefs sought
Having struck out the Petition, the Petitioners were not entitled to the declaratory reliefs sought; the validity of the title remains open to challenge
Both Respondents contended the title was fraudulently and unprocedurally acquired over alleged public land, and the 2nd Respondent argued that a declaration of title validity could only be sought by filing a suit, not a constitutional petition that would lock out parties challenging the title. The Petition having been struck out, no relief issued.
Legal principles established
#- A petition invoking the Bill of Rights must specifically plead the rights infringed, set out particulars and facts demonstrating the contravention
- A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law on assumed facts and cannot be raised where facts must be ascertained or discretion exercised
- Section 43 of the County Government Act is permissive, not mandatory, leaving a county government free to choose its legal representation
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection against the 1st Respondent's legal representation is dismissed
- 2.The Petition is struck out
- 3.Costs of the Petition to the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitution of Kenya, Articles 22 and 23 (enforcement of Bill of Rights); land and environment jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Thiririka Self Help Group v Nyandarua County Assembly & another [2018] KEELC 2194 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Petition dated 23rd March 2017 (High Court of Kenya, Nyahururu, transferred to Environment and Land Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/2194/eng@2018-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.