Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutNot stated in full in the judgment· [2024] KEELC 5118 (KLR)

Chunky Limited v Coast Water Works Development Agency (Formerly Coast Water Services Board) & another (Environment & Land Petition E001 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 5118 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
10 July 2024
2,678 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A landowner challenging compulsory acquisition in Kenya must first go to the Land Acquisition Tribunal before the Environment and Land Court, or the case will be struck out.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioner, owner of Plot No. MN/V/909 measuring approximately 0.580 acres, petitioned the Environment and Land Court challenging the compulsory acquisition of part of the land by the 1st Respondent (Coast Water Services Board) pursuant to a newspaper advertisement of 11/9/2011. The Petitioner was never served with a notice of intention to acquire nor invited to public participation, and only learned of the acquisition on 15/10/2014 through a letter awarding compensation of Kshs 80,040/=, which it alleged undervalued the land. It sought declarations that the acquisition was ultra vires, compensation of Kshs 12,867,953/= with interest, and an order of prohibition against vesting the wayleave. The 1st Respondent filed a preliminary objection contending that the court lacked jurisdiction because the Petitioner should have first pursued the Water Tribunal under the Water Act 2016. The court applied the Mukisa Biscuits and Oraro v Mbaja tests, finding the objection a pure point of law. Applying the Karume exhaustion principle and the decision in Giciri Thuo, the court held that disputes on compulsory acquisition and compensation must first be ventilated before the National Land Commission inquiry under Section 112 of the Land Act and the Land Acquisition Tribunal under Section 133A. The court also noted the Water Act 2016 provisions relied upon did not apply retrospectively to a 2014 cause of action. The petition was struck out with no orders as to costs, with liberty to pursue statutory redress.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the preliminary objection was properly raised

Holding

The objection on jurisdiction was a pure point of law and properly before the court

Reasoning

Applying Mukisa Biscuits and Oraro v Mbaja, the court found that the issue of jurisdiction is a matter of law not fact, requiring no ascertainment of facts, and therefore properly raised as a preliminary objection.

p. 4
02

Whether the court had jurisdiction over the dispute

Holding

Jurisdiction was prematurely invoked; the petitioner should have pursued the statutory mechanisms under the Land Act (and potentially the Water Act regime)

Reasoning

The court applied the Karume exhaustion principle and Giciri Thuo, holding that disputes on compulsory acquisition compensation must first go to the National Land Commission inquiry under Section 112 and then the Land Acquisition Tribunal under Section 133A before the ELC's appellate jurisdiction is engaged. The Water Act 2016 provisions relied on by the 1st Respondent did not apply since the cause of action arose in 2014 under the Water Act 2002.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Where there is a clear statutory procedure for redress of a grievance, that procedure must be strictly followed and exhausted before invoking the court's jurisdiction
  • The Land Acquisition Tribunal is the first port of call for disputes relating to compulsory acquisition of land including creation of wayleaves and easements

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The petition is struck out
  2. 2.No orders as to costs
  3. 3.The Petitioner is at liberty to pursue appropriate redress as provided under the law
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; Environment and Land Court Act No. 12 of 2012

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chunky Limited v Coast Water Works Development Agency (Formerly Coast Water Services Board) & another (Environment & Land Petition E001 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 5118 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in full in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5118/eng@2024-07-10

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