George Owino Odhiambo & 13 others v Kenya Railways Corporation & another [2020] KEELC 1475 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court in Nakuru ruled that a private landlord-tenant eviction dispute belongs in ordinary civil courts, not constitutional petitions, and dismissed the tenants' case with costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Competency of replying affidavit sworn without demonstrated authority
The affidavit was not struck out; constitutional petitions are exempt from strict civil procedure technicalities
The court acknowledged no demonstrated authority existed but held that Article 22(3)(b) and (d) and the 2013 Practice Rules require minimal formality and that courts should not be unreasonably restricted by procedural technicalities in Bill of Rights enforcement. The deponent was the respondent's employee and Estate Manager, conversant with the matter, and his affidavit did not prejudice the petitioners. The cited striking-out authorities were civil cases.
Whether the petition met the Anarita Karimi Njeru precision threshold
Yes - the petition set out the constitutional provisions allegedly violated and endeavoured to give particulars, satisfying the principle of precision
While the Anarita Karimi Njeru principle remains good law, it must be read against Article 22(3)(b) and (d) which relax formalities. A petition need not be elegantly drawn; it suffices that it discloses the alleged transgressions, the provisions infringed and the manner of infringement so respondents can respond. The petition did so, so it proceeded to merits.
Whether the dispute was constitutional or a contractual landlord-tenant matter
Contractual; the constitutional jurisdiction was improperly invoked and the petition was an abuse of process
Each petitioner held a personalised two-year tenancy agreement terminable on one month's notice, which was duly served. Disagreement with termination of a private commercial contract is a civil matter for the ordinary courts, not for enforcement of the Bill of Rights. Relying on Chacha J in Okutoyi and Lenaola J in Karanja, the court held that statutory/contractual rights are not fundamental rights and invoking the Bill of Rights where the State is not a party dilutes its sanctity.
Legal principles established
#- Strict civil procedure technicalities on affidavits do not apply to constitutional petitions governed by Article 22(3) and the 2013 Practice Rules, which permit flexibility and informality
- A petition disclosing the alleged transgressions and the provisions breached should be allowed to proceed to full hearing despite imperfect drafting
- Purely contractual landlord-tenant disputes should not be disguised as constitutional petitions; they belong in the ordinary civil courts
Court orders
#- 1.The petition dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 22 and 23 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (enforcement of the Bill of Rights); Article 165 jurisdiction of the High Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "George Owino Odhiambo & 13 others v Kenya Railways Corporation & another [2020] KEELC 1475 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Constitutional Petition, Nakuru (Petition dated 29th January 2019, amended 19th February 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1475/eng@2020-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.