Keiyo Farm Company Ltd v Ministry of Devolution and Planning & another [2018] KEELC 2526 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a land compensation claim because the company could not produce any title documents or evidence proving its constitutional rights were violated.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the petitioner proved ownership of the parcels of land known as LR.5529, 7363/2 and 5788
- 2.Whether the petitioner proved that its rights under the Bill of Rights were violated (alleged Ngoroko attacks, eviction and vandalism)
- 3.Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation from the respondents
Key legal issues
#Proof of ownership of the claimed parcels of land
Petitioner failed to prove ownership; only certificate of incorporation and members' list were annexed
The petitioner alleged purchase of 3,023 acres in 1970 but produced no extract of title or other document of ownership. Counsel for the respondents highlighted this omission, and the court found the ownership allegation unfounded, defeating both the declaration and compensation claims.
Proof of constitutional rights violation
No violation of constitutional rights was proved; the evidence did not demonstrate the alleged infringement
Beyond the certificate of incorporation and a list of members, the petitioner produced no evidence that the Ngoroko attacks, evictions, killings or vandalism occurred, nor any police report. The court held that a party alleging breach must plead and prove the manner, nature and extent of infringement and injury.
Legal principles established
#- To prove violation of Bill of Rights provisions, a party must state the provisions infringed, the manner of infringement, the nature and extent of the infringement and of the injury suffered
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 21, 22 and 23 of the Constitution (constitutional petition jurisdiction)
Relief refused
#Compensation for loss of land, material, crops, grass, livestock and forceful eviction
Petitioner failed to prove ownership of the land or violation of constitutional rights
Declaration that the petitioner is the rightful owner of LR.5529, 7363/2 and 5788
No extract of title or document of ownership was produced
Costs of the petition
Petition dismissed
Costs
No order as to costs (petition dismissed with no order as to costs)
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The petition herein is not supported by the evidence required in law and is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
for a party to prove violation of their rights under the various provisions of the Bill of Rights they must not only state the provisions of the Constitution allegedly infringed in relation to them, but also the manner of infringement
the petitioners have not established that their farms were vandalized and no contravention of constitutional rights has been proved at all
Issues in the judgment
#The parcel number is inconsistently recorded in the judgment as LR.5529 in the pleading narration but LR.5539 in the court's finding
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Keiyo Farm Company Ltd v Ministry of Devolution and Planning & another [2018] KEELC 2526 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Petition filed 12.1.2015 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/2526/eng@2018-06-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.