Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutELC Petition No. 7 of 2023· [2024] KEELC 4459 (KLR)

Kung’u & 3 others (Suing as the administrators of the Estate of Michael Ng’ang’a Njoroge) v Kenya Railways Corporation (Environment & Land Petition 7 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 4459 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 May 2024
2,566 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court struck out a Kshs. 76 million constitutional petition against Kenya Railways, ruling ordinary property-damage claims belong in a civil suit.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioners, administrators of the estate of the late Michael Ng'ang'a Njoroge, petitioned the Environment and Land Court at Nyandarua alleging that agents of Kenya Railways Corporation entered their suit property, L.R. No. 3777/279 (I.R.7124/1), Ol'Kalou Township, on 15th and 16th February 2021 and partially demolished a 3-storey building without notice or a court order under Section 16 of the Kenya Railways Corporation Act. They sought declarations of unconstitutionality, constitutional damages, a permanent injunction and costs, valuing the loss at over Kshs. 76 million. The Respondent denied liability, questioned the deceased's title and approvals, and asserted a power to remove obstructions within the railway 'visibility diamond'. The parties elected to dispose of the petition by affidavits and written submissions. Framing four issues, the court held that the petition raised no valid constitutional questions: it was an ordinary claim for compensation for damage to private property, properly brought as a civil suit for damages, and the principle of constitutional avoidance, supported by Kenya Bus Services, Oshwal Academy, James Kuria and Murage, barred converting every legal grievance into a constitutional petition. The court found it unnecessary to determine the merits, held the Petitioners were not entitled to the reliefs sought, and struck out the petition with costs to the Respondent, expressly without prejudice to the Petitioners' right to file a normal civil suit to vindicate their property rights.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the petition raised valid constitutional issues

Holding

No; the petition was an ordinary property-damage claim dressed as a constitutional petition and was struck out without prejudice to a civil suit.

Reasoning

The court found the grievance was purely proprietary - loss from partial demolition - for which a civil suit for damages is the appropriate vehicle. Relying on constitutional-avoidance authority including Kenya Bus Services, Oshwal Academy, James Kuria and Murage, it held the Constitution should not be a thoroughfare for common grievances, and struck out the petition without prejudice to a civil suit.

p. 6
02

Entitlement to reliefs sought

Holding

Not entitled; the reliefs fell with the struck-out petition.

Reasoning

Having found the petition raised no valid constitutional issues and was unfit for adjudication as a petition, the court held the Petitioners could not be granted the declarations, damages and injunction sought. It declined to determine the merits, deeming it unnecessary after the threshold finding.

p. 6
03

Costs

Holding

Respondent awarded costs, costs following the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Reasoning

Applying the general rule that costs follow the event and that a successful party should ordinarily get costs absent good reason to depart, the court found no reason to depart and awarded the Respondent costs of the petition.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Not every infringement of a proprietary right warrants redress by constitutional petition where an adequate civil remedy exists.
  • Where an alternative statutory or civil remedy exists, that remedy should be pursued rather than a constitutional petition.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The petition dated 01.02.2022 is struck out with costs to the Respondent, without prejudice to the right of the Petitioners to file a normal civil suit for vindication of their property rights
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 22, 23, 165 and 258 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kung’u & 3 others (Suing as the administrators of the Estate of Michael Ng’ang’a Njoroge) v Kenya Railways Corporation (Environment & Land Petition 7 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 4459 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). ELC Petition No. 7 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4459/eng@2024-05-30

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