County Government of Turkana v National Land Commission & another (Environment and Land Petition 2 & 3 of 2019 (Consolidated)) [2019] KEELC 3436 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the dispute before the court is an intergovernmental dispute within Article 189 and the Intergovernmental Relations Act
It is; the dispute involves the Turkana County Government and the National Government over alleged failure to consult in the compulsory acquisition of land
The court applied the criteria in Council of County Governors, requiring a specific disagreement of a legal nature between organs of state arising from statutory powers. The core complaint was the county government being ignored in the geo-referencing and acquisition process; two levels of government were therefore involved, rendering it an intergovernmental dispute within the Act.
Whether Article 189(3) and (4) and Sections 30–35 of the Intergovernmental Relations Act oust the court's jurisdiction
They claw back the court's jurisdiction; a party must exhaust the alternative dispute resolution mechanisms before instituting judicial proceedings
The court traced the dispute resolution framework from Article 6(2) and Article 189 through Sections 30–35 of the Act, holding that the Constitution itself has clawed back jurisdiction, drawing on Isiolo County Assembly Board and International Legal Consultancy Group, and the Karume principle that prescribed procedures must be strictly followed.
Whether consolidation of the county government's petition with community members' petition distinguishes their cases
No; the claims are inextricably joined and orders must affect all parties
The court held the land is held in trust by the county government for the community, making the claims indistinguishable; having been consolidated by consent, the parties are bound and cannot use consolidation to avoid the consequences of non-exhaustion of the statutory mechanism.
Legal principles established
#- Where the Constitution and a statute provide an intergovernmental dispute resolution mechanism, that mechanism must be invoked and exhausted before resorting to judicial proceedings
- Jurisdiction must be determined as a preliminary issue the moment it arises
Court orders
#- 1.The objection on want of jurisdiction succeeds
- 2.The petitions shall be stayed for a period of one (1) year
- 3.Within that period the 1st petitioner shall initiate and pursue the alternative dispute resolution mechanism set out under the Intergovernmental Relations Act
- 4.In default of the 1st petitioner initiating that mechanism within 90 days of the order, the petition shall stand automatically dismissed
- 5.Each party shall bear their own costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution and Section 13(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act, subject to the claw-back under Article 189(3) & (4) and Sections 30–35 of the Intergovernmental Relations Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Turkana v National Land Commission & another (Environment and Land Petition 2 & 3 of 2019 (Consolidated)) [2019] KEELC 3436 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Petition No. 2 of 2019 (consolidated with Petition No. 3 of 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/3436/eng@2019-04-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.