Kariuki & 3 others (Suing as Chairman, Vice Chairlady, Secretary and Treasurer of members on their behalf and of Lake Naivasha Riparian Association) v National Land Commission & 5 others
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court cancelled the allocation of Lake Naivasha riparian land, confirming that protected lakeshore land belongs to the public and cannot be privately allocated.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the petition met the threshold of a constitutional petition
It did - the petitioners demonstrated the suit land is public riparian land protected by law and their right to a clean environment was infringed
Applying Anarita Karimi, the court found the petitioners pleaded with precision the provisions infringed and the manner of infringement. The suit land was admitted to be public riparian land protected under the Water Resources Management Rules 2006, and Article 42 entitled every person to a clean and healthy environment, so recourse to the court's constitutional jurisdiction was available.
Whether the allocation of the riparian land to the 3rd and 4th respondents was lawful
It was not - the land is public riparian land, unavailable for private allocation, in breach of Articles 42 and 62(3) and (4)
The court found the property to be public land within Article 62, riparian land being part of public land given state control of watercourses. The 1st respondent itself conceded the land was public and irregularly allocated. No allotment letter or lawful process was demonstrated, so the alienation, demarcation and allocation were null and void.
Whether certiorari should issue despite the alleged inordinate delay
Certiorari was granted quashing the allocation decision notwithstanding the respondents' delay objection
The 1st respondent argued the allocation occurred in 1994 and over six months had lapsed under Order 53 Rule 2. The court nonetheless granted certiorari quashing the decision of the 1st respondent and/or its predecessor to demarcate, alienate and allocate the suit land, without expressly reasoning on the delay point.
Legal principles established
#- Riparian land forms part of public land and is not available for allocation to private persons
- A constitutional petition must set out with reasonable precision the provisions infringed and the manner of infringement
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the alienation, demarcation and allocation of the Lake Naivasha riparian land comprised in Title No. Naivasha Municipality Block 5/372 to the 3rd and 4th respondents is illegal, unlawful, unprocedural, irregular, contrary to the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and null and void
- 2.Order of judicial review by way of certiorari to quash the decision of the 1st respondent and/or its predecessor to demarcate, alienate and allocate the suit land to the 3rd respondent and its transfer to the 4th respondent
- 3.Each party to bear own costs of the petition
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22(1), 23(3), 70 and 162(2) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 (constitutional petition on environment and land)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kariuki & 3 others (Suing as Chairman, Vice Chairlady, Secretary and Treasurer of members on their behalf and of Lake Naivasha Riparian Association) v National Land Commission & 5 others", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Petition 17 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/15962/eng@2023-02-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.