Minayo & 240 others v Principal Secretary Ministry of Lands Housing And Urban Development & another
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed 241 Kibera residents' challenge to evictions because they failed to prove their claims with evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether petitioners were entitled to unique identification numbers following enumeration
Petition dismissed - no evidence placed before the court that petitioners were enumerated or assigned special numbers
The court found petitioners produced photographs of doors plastered with numbers that could not be attributed to them, none identified their own number, and no photographs of themselves with numbers were produced. The verification was done jointly with the local committee; petitioners could have obtained confirmation letters. Evidence fell below the evidential threshold in sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act.
Whether the on-going eviction process was unconstitutional
Petition failed to meet the Anarita Karimi Njeru precision threshold; no evidence of forced evictions
The petition merely enumerated articles allegedly violated without pleading the manner of violation. Evidence showed consultative meetings and voluntary agreement by project affected persons to vacate by November 30, 2019. The petitioners did not present evidence of forced evictions, so no constitutional violation was demonstrated.
Whether petitioners were entitled to compensation
Court declined to direct compensation; petitioners must submit to the established ongoing stakeholder process
Compensation figures of Kshs 58,000 for tenants and Kshs 68,000 for structure owners were agreed and not disputed. However, the process is participatory, involves enumeration and verification, and is ongoing. The court, not being inquisitorial, cannot determine who is a genuine beneficiary.
Whether Article 47 fair administrative action rights were violated
Claim dismissed as without merit - the process was inclusive and consultative
The court found it undisputed that the process involved consultation with the petitioners and others on relocation and resettlement through meetings at Canaan Social Hall and stakeholder engagement. The inclusive consultative process did not offend fair administrative action principles.
Legal principles established
#- A party alleging violation of constitutional rights bears the burden of proving it, and a constitutional petition must plead with precision the provisions infringed and the manner of infringement (Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold)
- The burden of proof lies on the petitioner on a balance of probability before the respondent is called upon to rebut
- A constitutional petition that merely enumerates constitutional provisions in the heading without pleading particulars of violation is deficient
Court orders
#- 1.Petition dismissed
- 2.Each party bears its own costs of the petition
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23 and 165 of the Constitution - petition alleging violation of fundamental rights under Article 40, 43 and 47
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Minayo & 240 others v Principal Secretary Ministry of Lands Housing And Urban Development & another", Case Analysis (2022). Environment & Land Petition 12 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/15156/eng@2022-11-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.