Kamire & 68 others v Uasin Gishu County Governemnt (Environment & Land Petition 4 of 2018) [2023] KEELC 210 (KLR)

Applying Anarita Karimi Njeru, the court held the petitioners had merely asserted violation of Articles 40, 43, 55, 57 and 186 without stating the manner of infringement. Evidence showed the traders had been allocated stalls, abandoned them, and returned to the streets, blocking premises, fire lanes and pavements, so the pleaded violations were not made out.

The court found that after complaints from matatu operators, businesses and the fire department, a meeting was convened at which the petitioners were represented, alternative markets were allocated, and a 30-day notice issued before removal. This satisfied Article 47 and the Fair Administrative Action Act, so the right to fair administrative action was not breached.

The petitioners had been allocated stalls but abandoned them and operated on public streets, verandahs and road reserves without even temporary occupation licences. Having no property or interest in those areas, their removal could not constitute arbitrary deprivation of property under Article 40. The court also noted Article 186 concerns functions of national and county governments, not court orders.

Applying Diana Kethi Kilonzo and Council of Civil Service Unions, the court held that legitimate expectation arises from a promise or regular practice of a public body. Here the petitioners were consulted, given reasons, and offered alternative markets (Kahoya, Langas, Kimumu, Hawkers market among others). The withdrawal of street trading accommodation was therefore accompanied by due process and no expectation was breached.

The court held that by opening various markets for the traders in keeping with section 36(1)(c) of the Urban Areas and Cities Act, the Respondent progressively realised socio-economic rights, so Article 43 was not infringed. Articles 55 and 57 concern youth and minorities/marginalised persons, and nothing in the petition demonstrated violation of those rights.