Nguruman Ltd v Attorney General & another (Environment and Land Petition 18 of 2018) [2021] KEELC 2273 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's government must pay Nguruman Limited over Kshs 647 million plus yearly ecotourism losses because police failed to stop invasions of its land.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the invasions of the petitioner's land constituted deprivation of property contrary to Article 40
Yes - the respondents violated and infringed the petitioner's right to own property and its protection, and the petitioner proved its petition on a balance of probabilities
It was undisputed that invasions occurred in 1991, 2000 and 2014. Under Section 24 of the National Police Service Act, the police had a duty to maintain law and order and protect life and property, which they totally failed to discharge despite court orders directed at specific officers. Courts have no police force of their own and always call upon the National Police Service, so failure of that magnitude is an indictment on those charged with protecting citizens' property. Reliance was placed on Arnacheny Limited v Attorney General.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation
Yes, in part - compensation awarded for the land and for destructions and lost ecotourism revenue proved by an uncontroverted valuation report
The court accepted the valuation evidence of PW2, Mr Joseph Wanjau, which was not controverted by the respondents, and awarded the claimed sums for destroyed lodges, infrastructure, assets, vehicles and trees, plus annual ecotourism revenue loss in US dollars, with interest. Several other heads claimed (transport infrastructure, agricultural revenue, general and aggravated damages) were not granted.
Legal principles established
#- The state is liable where property of an individual is at stake to be taken by others without due process, and the National Police Service has a constitutional and statutory duty to protect property which it can be indicted for failing to discharge
- The protection of the right to property under Article 40(1) and 40(3) is in absolute terms and can only be interfered with as stipulated in law
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the petitioner's rights to protection of property as guaranteed under Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 was violated by the state
- 2.An order of compensation for LR Narok/Nguruman/Kamorora/1 of Kshs. 33,350,000
- 3.Kshs. 340,000,000 compensation for lodges and ancillary buildings destroyed pursuant to the invasion commenced 31/10/2014
- 4.Kshs. 162,000,000 compensation for electric power, water supply and reticulation infrastructure destroyed
- 5.Kshs. 61,177,196 compensation for loose assets, furniture and consumables destroyed or stolen
- 6.Kshs. 11,250,000 compensation for motor vehicles destroyed or stolen
- 7.Kshs. 39,470,400 for perennial trees destroyed or died
- 8.United States Dollars 9,198,000 per year from 1st November 2014 until date of judgment for loss of potential ecotourism revenue, with interest thereon until payment in full
- 9.Costs of the petition to the petitioners
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 19, 20, 21, 22 and 258 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nguruman Ltd v Attorney General & another (Environment and Land Petition 18 of 2018) [2021] KEELC 2273 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Constitutional Petition filed 17/10/2018 (Kilgoris ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/2273/eng@2021-07-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.