Meru Cultural Center & 17 others v Kisima Farm Limited & 24 others
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court threw out a historical land injustice petition because it was too vague, confirming the Environment and Land Court can hear such claims without deferring to the National Land Commission.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court should defer jurisdiction to the NLC under the doctrine of constitutional avoidance
Court declined to defer; it has jurisdiction over historical land injustice claims notwithstanding the NLC's parallel mandate.
Relying on the binding Court of Appeal decisions in Chief Land Registrar v Koech and Safepak v Wambega, the court held that nothing in the Constitution or the NLC Act ousts the ELC's jurisdiction over historical injustice claims. The petitioners had in fact lodged an application with the NLC whose outcome was undisclosed, but that did not divest the court of jurisdiction.
Whether the petition met the constitutional pleading precision threshold
It did not; the petition was struck out.
Save for citing constitutional provisions in the title, the petitioners made only generalized allegations of forceful displacement without particulars of the properties, the forefathers dispossessed, the perpetrators, dates or manner of violation, and without specifying complaints against each of the 25 respondents. Such omnibus pleading denies respondents fair opportunity to respond and fails the Anarita Karimi Njeru standard.
Legal principles established
#- The ELC has jurisdiction to hear and determine historical land injustice claims whether or not the NLC is seized of the matter; courts need not defer to the NLC under the doctrine of avoidance.
- Constitutional violations must be pleaded with a reasonable degree of precision, particularising the provisions violated, the manner of violation and the injury caused.
- Where multiple respondents are joined, a petition must demonstrate how each respondent violated which constitutional right; omnibus pleading is impermissible.
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection is allowed to the extent that the petitioners failed to plead with precision the constitutional violations and particulars of their complaints
- 2.The petition is struck out with costs to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 165(3) of the Constitution; Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over historical land injustice claims (Article 67(2)(e) considered)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Meru Cultural Center & 17 others v Kisima Farm Limited & 24 others", Case Analysis (2023). Constitutional Petition E006 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/19863/eng@2023-09-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.