Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedEnvironment & Land Petition E005 of 2021· [2023] KEELC 17119 (KLR)

Langat & 87 others v Deputy County Commissioner, Narok South & 11 others; District Land Registrar, Narok (Interested Party)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
4 May 2023
CMC G Mbogo
3,636 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court dismissed 88 landowners' constitutional petition because they never precisely showed who violated their rights, how, and why.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Eighty-eight petitioners (after the court struck out duplicated names on its own motion) filed a petition dated 30th June 2021 in the Environment and Land Court at Narok claiming to be the lawful registered owners of some 41 land parcels arising from the subdivision of Cis-Mara/Ololulunga (Enakishomi Group Ranch)/115. They alleged that the respondents, led by the Deputy County Commissioner, Narok South, had commenced an illegal eviction exercise involving torching of houses, harassment, arrests and destruction of property, in violation of Articles 10, 26, 27, 28, 29(d) and (f), 40 and 47 of the Constitution. They sought declarations of ownership and trespass, a permanent injunction against eviction and interference, compensation, and costs. The state respondents filed grounds of opposition invoking the Anarita Karimi Njeru precision principle and Article 24 limitations; private respondents asserted their own titles and denied any intrusion, noting pending related suits. The court framed a single issue: whether the petitioners were entitled to the orders sought. Applying Anarita Karimi Njeru and Mumo Matemu, Mbogo J held that although the petition identified the offending acts and constitutional provisions, it failed to establish the 'who', 'what' and 'why' with reasonable precision, amounting to blanket condemnation of the respondents. The evidence - title deeds, sale agreements and undated photographs - was insufficient, and the alleged eviction of 2nd July 2021 was wholly unsubstantiated. The petition was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the petition met the threshold for a constitutional petition under the Anarita Karimi Njeru principle

Holding

The petition failed the threshold; the petitioners did not provide the 'who', 'what' and 'why' of the alleged violations.

Reasoning

The court accepted that the petitioners identified the actions they considered wrong and the constitutional provisions allegedly violated. However, they failed to give a comprehensive account of the respondents' actions individually, severally or jointly, instead throwing blanket condemnation over all respondents. The supporting evidence (title deeds, sale agreements, undated photographs) was insufficient, and the alleged eviction of 2nd July 2021 was unsubstantiated.

p. 9
02

Whether the petitioners proved violations of Articles 27, 28, 29(d) and (f), 40 and 47 of the Constitution

Holding

No violations were proved; the allegations were speculative and unsupported by evidence.

Reasoning

The petitioners relied on title deeds, sale agreements and photographs which the court could not place in time or context. The claimed eviction exercise of 2nd July 2021 was not substantiated by any evidence. Without proof of the specific conduct of each respondent, the alleged violations of equality, dignity, security of the person, property and fair administrative action could not be established.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • A constitutional petitioner must set out with reasonable precision the provisions said to be infringed and the manner of infringement; it is not enough to list constitutional provisions.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The petition dated 30th June, 2021 is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear its own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 1(1), 2(1), 2(4), 3, 10, 19, 20, 22(1), 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29(d) and (f), 40, 47(1), 159, 165(3)(d)
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A and 1B
  • Appellate Jurisdiction ActSections 3A and 3B

Cases cited (2)

  • Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic (No.1)
    [1979] KLR 154

    A petitioner must set out with reasonable precision the provisions infringed and the manner of infringement.

  • Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & Others
    [2013] eKLR (Civil Appeal No. 290 of 2012)

    Reiterated the Anarita Karimi Njeru principle; procedure is a handmaiden of just determination of cases.

Jurisdiction invoked
Article 165(3)(d) of the Constitution (enforcement of Bill of Rights) as invoked by the petitioners

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Langat & 87 others v Deputy County Commissioner, Narok South & 11 others; District Land Registrar, Narok (Interested Party)", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Petition E005 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/17119/eng@2023-05-04

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.