Langat & another v County Goverment of Bomet & 3 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition 6 of 2019) [2023] KEELC 126 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Bomet County can no longer collect revenue from roadside traders at Kapkwen after a court found the practice violated residents' constitutional right to a clean environment.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over constitutional environmental claims
The ELC, not the National Environment Tribunal, has jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes under article 70 of the Constitution
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and section 13(1) of the Environment and Land Court Act empower the court to hear matters related to environment and land. Section 13(3) expressly precludes nothing in the Act from hearing applications for redress of violations of rights relating to environment and land under articles 42, 69 and 70, vesting exclusive jurisdiction in this court.
Whether the right to a clean and healthy environment was violated
Violation established; trading on ungazetted road reserves without permits, lacking sanitation, infringed article 42
The respondents collected revenue from traders operating on the Bomet-Sotik Highway road reserves which were not designated or gazetted market areas and lacked permits from the roads authorities. The area had no running water or toilets, posed health and safety hazards to residents, vendors, motorists and pedestrians, breaching the county's fourth schedule functions over markets, health, transport and sanitation.
Standard of proof in constitutional petitions
A petitioner must prove violation on a balance of probabilities with precision, per Anarita Katimi Njeru
The court applied the Anarita Katimi Njeru standard requiring a petitioner to set out with reasonable degree of precision the provisions said to be infringed and the manner of infringement, supported by evidence. The petitioners satisfied this by clearly pleading articles 19, 28 and 42 and availing uncontroverted evidence of the trading and sanitation conditions at Kapkwen.
Legal principles established
#- A public body with exhaustively defined jurisdiction must operate within those limits and may not expand its jurisdiction through administrative craft or innovation
- Conducting business on a road or road reserve requires a permit from the relevant roads authority under the Kenya Roads Act
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the respondents violated the petitioners' right to a clean environment
- 2.The respondents to immediately converge a meeting with the petitioners and interested parties to implement the smooth transition of the market from Kapkwen to Kapsimotwo within 30 days
- 3.No collection of revenue from traders and trading activities alongside Bomet-Sotik Highway and other road reserves within Kapkwen after the said 30 days
- 4.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and section 13(1) and (3) of the Environment and Land Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Langat & another v County Goverment of Bomet & 3 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition 6 of 2019) [2023] KEELC 126 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment (petition of October 14, 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/126/eng@2023-01-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.