Zipporah Nkoyai v James Kaberia M & 2 others [2018] KEELC 3777 (KLR)

The court reiterated the Anarita Karimi Njeru rule, restated in Mumo Matemu, that a constitutional petitioner must identify with precision the provisions violated and the manner of violation. Apart from a general reference to article 40(1), the discrimination averment cited no article and was not substantiated, nor was the fair administrative action complaint tied to any constitutional provision.

The 2nd respondent was the Land Adjudication Officer, showing rights and interests were still being ascertained under the Land Adjudication Act and Land Consolidation Act. Objection proceedings were underway. Following Tobias Achola, the adjudication officer has full power to ascertain and determine interests prior to registration and the court's role is supervisory only, so the petition was premature.

The petitioner averred discrimination because she is a woman but cited no constitutional article and demonstrated no discriminatory act. If she claims the land as M'Elongi Ndegwa's daughter, section 4 of the Law of Succession Act governs succession to immovable property, and the authorities on equality of children she cited were inapplicable.

Unlike the Kuria Green case where titles were cancelled without a hearing, the petitioner was summoned to objection proceedings before the 2nd respondent. The court also noted this was not a case where her rights and interests had crystallised into rights of proprietorship, so no administrative-action violation was made out.