Murungi v Attorney General & 2 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E007 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 4343 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court-style land court dismissed a petition challenging a Minister's land appeal decision because the petitioner failed to prove bias — allegations alone don't win cases.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.If the petition has met the threshold of a constitutional petition
- 2.If the petition failed to exhaust internal dispute mechanism
- 3.If the issues raised in the petition call for the intervention of a constitutional court
- 4.If the petitioner has proved a breach of his constitutional right to a fair hearing and protection from deprivation of property without a fair hearing
- 5.Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought
- 6.What is the order to costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the petition met the constitutional threshold
The petition satisfied the precision requirement of Anarita Karimi Njeru and Rule 11 of the Mutunga Rules
The petitioner described the parties, set out the facts relied upon, specified the injury, issues of law and reliefs sought, and swore an affidavit in support, enabling respondents to respond without seeking better particulars.
Whether the petitioner proved breach of the right to a fair hearing
No breach was proved; the proceedings showed the petitioner was accorded the right to present his defence, call witnesses and cross-examine
The record of the hearing of 28.7.2021 showed the petitioner cross-examined the 3rd respondent, testified and was cross-examined, with the hearing adjourned for witnesses. The Minister's findings were guided by the evidence, facts and law, and no evidence of real likelihood of bias was adduced.
Whether the petition was a disguised appeal against a final Minister's decision
The court nonetheless found the circumstances justified approaching the constitutional court, but on the merits the petition failed
The court accepted that the reliefs sought and the petitioner's circumstances justified constitutional intervention, citing Rental Healthcare and Mutanga Tea, but found that on proof the petitioner had not established bias, partiality or non-consideration of his evidence.
Legal principles established
#- A party alleging bias must adduce evidence of a real likelihood of bias; mere allegation is insufficient
- Where a grievance has a straightforward statutory redress procedure, that procedure should be strictly followed
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22(1), 23(1), 40, 47(2) and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Relief refused
#Declaration that the 2nd respondent's omission of the petitioner's evidence and the delay in delivering the decision were actuated by malice and violated his rights
Petitioner failed to prove bias or partiality; proceedings showed he was heard
Certiorari quashing the Minister's decision
Petition lacked merit; the Minister acted on the parties' evidence, facts and the law
Order for retrial of the Minister's appeal
Not granted as the petition was dismissed
Costs
No order as to costs — petition dismissed with no order costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The upshot is that I find the petition lacking merits. It is dismissed with no order costs.
Evidence of a real likelihood of bias and partiality has not been availed before this court. It is not enough to allege without proof.
The proceedings herein show that the petitioner was accorded a right to present his defense, call witnesses, and present documents in support.
The findings and the verdict of the minister are clear that the 2nd respondent was guided by the party's evidence, facts, and the law.
where there was a straightforward procedure for the redress of any particular grievance prescribed by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure should be strictly followed
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment refers to the 1st respondent's deponent inconsistently - the Minister's decision bears Michael Kioni's signature while the replying affidavit is sworn by Hassan Ali Bule; the court notes this discrepancy itself
Annexures on the date of the Minister's decision conflict: petitioner's annexure LM "6" is undated but allegedly 22.2.2022; 3rd respondent's annexure MGM "2" is dated 23.2.2023
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Murungi v Attorney General & 2 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E007 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 4343 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Petition dated 11.12.2023 (Meru ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4343/eng@2024-05-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.