Koros & 2 others v Attorney General & 3 others (Environment & Land Petition E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 72 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed a land petition filed 22 years late, confirming that constitutional petitions in Kenya must still respect limitation deadlines.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Limitation and inordinate delay in constitutional petitions
The Petition, filed 22 years after the 2002 verdict and adoption, was statute barred with no explanation for the delay; the Petitioners were riding on a mischief.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Janmohammed, the court held that constitutional petitions do not automatically escape limitation law. Factors include the nature of the right, the time taken to ventilate the violation, and whether the claimant rides on a mischief. Given the unexplained 22-year delay and the murky refund evidence, the petition was time barred.
Whether proceedings against a dead party were a nullity
The Tribunal proceedings and adoption were not a nullity; two parties were sued and the proper remedy would have been striking out the deceased's name.
The Petitioners bore the burden of proving the dispute was filed after Elijah Koros's death on 12th October 2001 and did not. Even assuming late filing, per Viktar Maina Ngunjiri, proceedings against multiple defendants where one was dead are not a nullity. Substitution of the deceased for execution purposes was lawful.
Jurisdiction of the Land Dispute Tribunal
The Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction because it dealt only with who received the refund money, not ownership of land.
Although Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act excludes title disputes, the court found the Tribunal's verdict concerned accountability for monies contributed by Talatany Farm Company Limited in the aborted sale, not determination of title to or ownership of registered land, so no nullity arose on jurisdictional grounds.
Threshold of a constitutional petition
The Petition did not meet the constitutional petition threshold as required by Anarita Karimi Njeru.
The court observed that the petition was a contractual money dispute disguised as a constitutional petition and failed the Anarita Karimi Njeru standard of precisely pleading the provisions violated and the manner of violation.
Legal principles established
#- A Constitutional Petition does not automatically oust the Limitation of Actions Act where there is inordinate delay.
- Proceedings instituted against more than one person, one of whom was dead at institution, are not a nullity; the dead person's name is struck out.
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition is dismissed with costs to the 4th Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 40(1) & (3), 43(1)(b), 47(1) and 50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Koros & 2 others v Attorney General & 3 others (Environment & Land Petition E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 72 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Constitutional Petition (Eldoret ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/72/eng@2025-01-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.