Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedPetition dated 14/09/2020 (filed 17/09/2020)· [2021] KEELC 340 (KLR)

Emmanuel Nyongesa & 34 others v County Government of Trans Nzoia [2021] KEELC 340 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 December 2021
1,999 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed landowners' petition because they skipped the planning appeal process the law requires before going to court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioners, allotted plots at Kapkoi Trading Centre by the defunct County Council of Nzoia, sought an order compelling the County Government of Trans Nzoia to implement an original physical plan dated 12/10/2002 and a declaration that any other plan was null and void, alleging displacement by a new plan. The respondent countered that Kapkoi Trading Centre is public land held in trust for the public; that the 2002 plan was never approved; that the allotment letters were temporary occupation licences; and that fresh planning commenced in 2014 with public participation, completed on 11/10/2018 and gazetted in Gazette Notice No. 5865 of 1/07/2020. The 1st petitioner admitted the 2002 plan was never approved but alleged lack of public participation. The court framed three issues: jurisdiction, alleged violation of rights, and whether the prayers should issue. Relying on the Lillian S and Samuel Kamau Macharia decisions on jurisdiction, and Section 40(4) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, the court held that the petitioners should have appealed to the county physical and land use planning liaison committee rather than invoke the constitutional jurisdiction. Applying the Karume principle, constitutional avoidance as expounded in Communications Commission of Kenya, and related authorities, the court declined to determine the other issues. It noted, however, that under Article 10 the respondent should consider the petitioners' concerns during planning and implementation. The petition was dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction and constitutional avoidance

Holding

The petition is an improper invocation of constitutional jurisdiction because a statutory appeal to the county physical and land use planning liaison committee was available and not pursued

Reasoning

Both parties admitted the 2002 plan was never approved. The respondent lawfully commenced fresh planning under Sections 45(1) and 49 of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act. Section 40(4) prescribes an appeal to the county liaison committee for aggrieved persons. The petitioners bypassed that procedure and invoked the Constitution instead. Applying the Karume principle and constitutional avoidance, the court declined to determine the constitutional questions and dismissed the petition.

p. 3
02

Validity of the unapproved 2002 plan relied on by petitioners

Holding

The 12/10/2002 plan relied on by the petitioners was never approved and therefore could not ground an order compelling its implementation

Reasoning

The petitioners admitted in the supplementary affidavit that the 2002 plan was never approved; the respondent deposed that no plan had been approved when the temporary occupation licences were issued and that planning commenced afresh in 2014 with public participation and culminated in Gazette Notice No. 5865 of 1/07/2020. An unapproved draft plan could not bind the county government.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where there is a clear statutory procedure for redress of a grievance, that procedure should be strictly followed before invoking the court's constitutional jurisdiction (constitutional avoidance)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The petition is dismissed
  2. 2.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Physical and Land Use Planning ActSection 45(1)
  • Physical and Land Use Planning ActSection 49(1) and (2)
  • Physical and Land Use Planning ActSection 40(4)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 10
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 22(1) and 23(3)

Cases cited (9)

  • Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
    [1989] eKLR
  • Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & 2 Others
    [2012] eKLR
  • Revital Healthcare (Epz) Limited & another v Ministry of Health & 5 others
    [2015] eKLR
  • John Harun Mwau Vs. Peter Gastrow & 3 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Mutanga Tea & Coffee Company Ltd v Shikara Limited & another
    [2015] eKLR
  • Speaker of The National Assembly V Karume
    [2008] 1 KLR 425
  • Southlake Panorama Limited v Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited & 3 others
    [2021] eKLR
  • Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others v Royal Media Services Limited & 5 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • S v. Mhlungu
    1995 (3) SA 867 (CC)
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 22(1) and 23 of the Constitution; Environment and Land Court jurisdiction

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Emmanuel Nyongesa & 34 others v County Government of Trans Nzoia [2021] KEELC 340 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Petition dated 14/09/2020 (filed 17/09/2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/340/eng@2021-12-16

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