Aengwo Torotich & 71 others v County Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer, Baringo & 5 others; Kuikui Adjudication Section & 3 others (Interested Parties)
The bottom line
#The court dismissed 72 Baringo residents' land petition because they skipped the Land Adjudication Act's objection and appeal process before going to court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Petitioners were required to exhaust the dispute resolution mechanisms under the Land Adjudication Act before approaching the court
Yes; the petition was an attempt to circumvent the statutory dispute resolution procedure and constituted an abuse of court process
The court found evidence that the Barwesa boundary was amended in 2011, that some affected persons (including Petitioner David Chesire) lodged objections, and that the Petitioners therefore knew of the process. The LAA contains an elaborate mechanism from claims under section 13 through objections to a final appeal to the Minister under section 29. Having bypassed it, the Petitioners could not claim the petition was their only avenue.
Whether the impugned adjudication was carried out secretly without the Petitioners' knowledge or participation
No; the evidence of the boundary amendment and objections by affected persons showed the Petitioners knew of the process
The Respondents produced a notice of amendment of the boundary (JOL 1(b)) and showed that objections were raised by some affected residents, including the 11th Petitioner. The court was therefore not satisfied the adjudication was covert, and found the Petitioners' excuse for not using the statutory mechanism unconvincing.
Whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the constitutional petition over land within an ongoing adjudication process
The court declined to grant relief, holding the statutory procedure should have been strictly followed
Relying on the Karume principle and authorities on the Land Adjudication Act's elaborate dispute mechanism culminating in the Minister's final determination under section 29, the court held that grievances arising within an adjudication section must be channeled through that mechanism, with judicial review available only in appropriate cases.
Legal principles established
#- Where a clear procedure for redress of a particular grievance is prescribed by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure should be strictly followed
- A party who fails to use the dispute resolution mechanism provided under the Land Adjudication Act cannot invoke constitutional jurisdiction as the only avenue of challenge
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the Petition awarded to the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23 and 165 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (contravention of fundamental rights and freedoms under Article 40)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Aengwo Torotich & 71 others v County Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer, Baringo & 5 others; Kuikui Adjudication Section & 3 others (Interested Parties)", Case Analysis (2022). Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E010 of 2021 (formerly Eldoret ELC Constitutional Petition No. E010 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/4866/eng@2022-09-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.