Mutisya & 173 others v Nairobi City County Government & another (Petition E024 of 2020) [2022] KEELC 3428 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court dismissed Gikomba traders' petition but confirmed that Nairobi County cannot evict anyone from public land without three months' statutory notice.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Proof of the alleged verbal eviction threats
The Petitioners failed to prove that verbal eviction threats were issued by employees or agents of the Respondents; the online article relied upon had no probative value
The Petitioners did not identify the alleged employees or agents or connect them to either Respondent, which are separate entities. The attached online publication was of questionable authenticity and, like newspaper articles, is inadmissible hearsay absent its maker. The burden under Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act was not discharged on a balance of probabilities.
Eviction from public land without statutory notice
Any eviction of the Petitioners from the public land must comply with Sections 152C and 155(2) and (3) of the Land Act, including written notice published in the Gazette, a nationwide newspaper and radio announcement at least three months in advance
The land is public land vested in and administered by the 1st Respondent. The court held, notwithstanding the failure of proof on the threats, that the statutory eviction regime must be observed, including liaison with the National Land Commission and humane treatment of affected persons in the course of recovering vacant possession.
Status of the Petitioners' interest in the market
The Petitioners are licencees paying levies and permit fees, with no accrued proprietary rights or entitlement to relocation when the licence is terminated
Their occupation rested on a mutual understanding and licence evidenced by payment of levies to the 1st Respondent. Following the Faraj Maharua decision, a temporary occupation licence creates no assignable interest, so no obligation to relocate arises, subject to lawful eviction procedures.
Entitlement to permanent injunction
A permanent injunction cannot issue against the registered owner recovering vacant possession absent exceptional circumstances, none of which were proven
Relying on Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen, the court held it is a serious matter to restrain a registered proprietor. The Petitioners' claim having failed on proof and their interest being merely a licence, the equitable relief of permanent injunction was not available.
Legal principles established
#- No eviction from public land may be carried out without the statutory eviction notice prescribed under Sections 152C and 155 of the Land Act
- A finding of violation of constitutional rights cannot be made without evidence; the petitioner bears the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities
- A Temporary Occupation Licence creates no interest in land capable of protection as a property right
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear own costs of the proceedings
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional jurisdiction under Article 165 of the Constitution (petition alleging violation of fundamental rights and freedoms under Articles 27, 28, 29, 40, 42, 43 and 47)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Hezekiah Cherorot Ngerechi v County Government of Bomet & another; National Land Commission (Interested Party)[2026] KEELC 5669 (KLR)24 Sept 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mutisya & 173 others v Nairobi City County Government & another (Petition E024 of 2020) [2022] KEELC 3428 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Petition dated December 2, 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/3428/eng@2022-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.