Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment· [2019] KEELC 2339 (KLR)

Eldoret Market Traders Association v Uasin Gishu County Government [2019] KEELC 2339 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya (High Court-level first-instance petition)
11 July 2019
AOA. Ombwayo
1,765 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court declared Uasin Gishu County's blanket seven-day market eviction notice unconstitutional because it failed to name individual defaulters or state what they owed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Eldoret Market Traders Association petitioned the Uasin Gishu County Government over a notice issued on 25 May 2015 by the County's Directorate of Licensing and Compliance, warning of massive eviction of market stall owners over unspecified arrears within seven days. The petitioner argued the notice violated Articles 1, 10, 40, 47, 55, 57 and 186 of the Constitution, being an omnibus notice in rem issued without due process, without a court decree, and without written reasons. The respondent contended the petitioners had not disputed the debt, no eviction took place, and the petition failed the Anarita Karimi threshold. The court, A. Ombwayo J, applied the South African SARFU decision, Mbalu Mutava and Dry Associates on Article 47 fair administrative action. It held the notice arbitrary and unlawful: it was addressed to one person while warning all stall owners, failed to identify individual defaulters or amounts owed (except for Mary Mideva), risked depriving stall owners who had paid their rent, and the seven-day period was unreasonable. The petitioner was found to have locus standi as a registered association facing a threat of arbitrary eviction. The court granted a declaration to that effect but refused general or special damages since no eviction occurred and no damages were proved, and declined costs because the petitioners did not demonstrate prompt payment of rent. Judgment delivered at Eldoret on 11 July 2019.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a general, omnibus 7-day eviction notice issued by a county government violates Article 47

Holding

Yes - the notice violated the right to fair administrative action as it was not directed to named individuals, did not specify amounts owed, and gave unreasonable notice

Reasoning

The court found the notice addressed to one person but warning all stall owners, without pinpointing who owed what, was arbitrary and could deprive innocent paid-up stall owners of income. Relying on Mbalu Mutava and Dry Associates, the court held administrative actions must satisfy constitutionality rather than the ultra vires doctrine. The 7-day notice period was held unreasonable.

p. 3
02

Whether the petitioner had locus standi

Holding

Yes - as a duly registered association of stall owners facing threat of arbitrary eviction, it met the Article 258 threshold

Reasoning

The court accepted the petitioner is a registered association whose members are stall owners at the Eldoret Wholesale Market, and that its members faced a threat of arbitrary eviction, satisfying the threshold for a constitutional reference.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Administrative actions of public bodies must meet the constitutional test of legality, reasonableness and procedural fairness under Article 47
  • An eviction notice that fails to identify individual defaulters and the amounts owed is arbitrary and unconstitutional

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the notice dated 25.5.2015 is arbitrary, unlawful and contrary to the law for failing to notify individual members of the intended eviction and for intimating that all stall owners who had not paid rent would be evicted without naming them personally
  2. 2.A finding that 7 days' notice was unreasonable
  3. 3.Refusal of damages for lack of proof
  4. 4.Refusal of costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 1, 2(4), 10, 25, 28, 40, 47, 55, 57, 186, 258
  • Law Reform ActCap 26 (judicial review)

Cases cited (5)

  • Mumo Matemu Vs Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 Others
    (2013) eKLR
  • President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Rugby Football Union and Others
    (CCT16/98) 2000 (1) SA 1
  • Judicial Service Commission v Mbalu Mutava & another
    [2014] eKLR
  • Dry Associates Ltd v Capital Markets Authority and Another
    [2012] eKLR
  • Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic (referred to as 'Anarita Karimi's case')
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 1, 10, 40, 47, 55, 57 and 186 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (constitutional petition; Article 2(4) declaration sought)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Eldoret Market Traders Association v Uasin Gishu County Government [2019] KEELC 2339 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/2339/eng@2019-07-11

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