Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck Out· [2024] KEELC 1295 (KLR)

Hassan & 20 others (Suing on their Behalf and on Behalf of all the Residents and Livestock Herders at Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization, (KALRO) Kiboko) v Kenya Agricultural And Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) & 4 others (Environment & Land Petition E003 of 2020) [2024] KEELC 1295 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 March 2024
TMT. MURIGI
1,442 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a land petition because citing constitutional articles without showing a specific violation is not enough.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on a Notice of Motion dated 14th October 2020, brought by the 1st Respondent under Rule 19 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013, seeking the striking out of a Petition dated 2nd October 2020. The 1st Respondent, through its Legal Officer Patricia Ngutu, argued that the Petition disclosed no reasonable cause of action against it, that it was the registered owner of LR. No. 25379 through its predecessor KARI, and that the Petitioners had admitted trespass and acknowledged having no title, right or interest in the suit property. The application was unopposed; the Petitioners and other Respondents filed no response despite service, and the matter was canvassed by written submissions. Counsel for the 1st Respondent argued that the Petition failed to particularise the alleged violations of Articles 10, 40, 60 and 67 of the Constitution and offended the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. Relying on the Anarita Karimi Njeru test as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Communications Commission of Kenya v Royal Media Services, and on Japheth Ododa Origa, the court held that the Petitioners, having conceded encroachment and having no proprietary rights, could not claim a breach of Article 40. Their grievance - a verbal 30-day notice to vacate - was an ordinary civil dispute. The court struck out the Petition against the 1st Respondent for failing to meet the threshold of a constitutional petition and ordered each party to bear its own costs. Judgment delivered on 6th March 2024 by Hon. T. Murigi, Judge, via Microsoft Teams.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Petition meets the threshold of a constitutional petition

Holding

The Petition fails to disclose any violation of fundamental rights; it is a civil dispute that belongs in a civil court

Reasoning

The Petitioners admitted encroaching on land registered in the 1st Respondent's name, so they held no proprietary rights capable of breach under Article 40. Their grievance was a short verbal 30-day notice to vacate, an ordinary civil matter of eviction. Mere citation of constitutional articles without linking them to a specific infringement against the 1st Respondent does not meet the Anarita Karimi Njeru precision standard, so the Petition was struck out against the 1st Respondent.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A constitutional petition must identify with precision the right infringed, the constitutional provision and the manner of infringement
  • Citing articles of the Constitution without relating them to the alleged infringement is insufficient

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Petition dated 2nd October, 2020 is struck out against the 1st Respondent for failing to meet the threshold of a Constitutional Petition
  2. 2.Each party to bear its own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 22(1)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 10, 40, 60, 67(1)(d), 67(1)(e)
  • Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013Rule 19

Cases cited (6)

  • Anarita Karimi Njeru v The Republic
    (1976-1980) KLR 1272
  • Communications Commission for Kenya & 5 Others v Royal Media Services Limited & 5 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Japheth Ododa Origa v Vice Chancellor University Of Nairobi & 2 Others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Nyandarua North Bar Owners Welfare Association & 6 others v County Commissioner Nyandarua & 4 others
    [2019] eKLR
  • Eric Kiprotich Soi & another v Director General Nairobi Metropolitan Services
    [2022] eKLR
  • Bandari Investment Company Limited v National Police Service & others
    [2021] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 22(1) of the Constitution; Rule 19 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Hassan & 20 others (Suing on their Behalf and on Behalf of all the Residents and Livestock Herders at Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization, (KALRO) Kiboko) v Kenya Agricultural And Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) & 4 others (Environment & Land Petition E003 of 2020) [2024] KEELC 1295 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/1295/eng@2024-03-06

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