Nabhan & another v National Land Commission & 3 others (Environment & Land Petition E018 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 1108 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court dismissed a Kshs. 13.78 billion land compensation claim because the owners could not prove the government actually compulsory-acquired their land.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether compulsory acquisition of the suit property was proved
Not proved. The statutory acquisition process under Sections 107-133 of the Land Act, 2012 was never initiated.
The Land Act prescribes a staged process: a Cabinet Secretary or CECM requests the NLC to acquire land, the NLC gazettes a notice of intention, holds an inquiry, and awards compensation. Here the NLC denied receiving any request and no notice was published. The court found the claim of compulsory acquisition far-fetched and unsubstantiated.
Whether the petition meets the Anarita Karimi Njeru precision threshold
It does not; the petition failed to specify who did what, when, and which rights were infringed.
The court found the petition failed to identify which Respondent allegedly subdivided and allotted the land, when the subdivision occurred, who the third parties were, how the Petitioners related to Rashid bin Salim, and whether the 1920 indenture and modern search certificate referred to the same land. Without these particulars, liability could not be apportioned.
Whether constitutional avoidance and exhaustion barred the petition
Yes - the petition was in substance an ownership dispute requiring a civil suit with third parties joined.
The reliefs sought would require determination of ownership, an issue suited to viva voce evidence in a civil suit. Third parties occupying and awaiting titles were not sued, yet the claim turned on their allotment. The court declined constitutional jurisdiction, holding the dispute resolvable outside a petition.
Whether a violation of the Petitioners' constitutional rights was disclosed
No violation was established.
Because the acquisition was not proved, the claimed breaches of Articles 10, 40, 47 and 50 fell away. The Petitioners also did not demonstrate any attempt to seek compensation under the Land Act before litigating, and the 1st Respondent denied invoking the Land Act at all.
Legal principles established
#- A party alleging compulsory acquisition must prove compliance with the statutory procedure in Sections 107-133 of the Land Act, beginning with a request to the National Land Commission and a gazette notice of intention to acquire.
- Constitutional petitions must be pleaded with reasonable precision, identifying with particularity the provisions violated and the manner of violation (Anarita Karimi Njeru principle).
- A dispute that in substance concerns ownership of land and requires joinder of third-party allottees belongs in a civil suit, not a constitutional petition, per the doctrine of constitutional avoidance.
Court orders
#- 1.The current petition is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the petition are awarded to the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional jurisdiction under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (Articles 10, 40, 47, 50 invoked); jurisdiction expressly conceded by the Respondents
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, "Nabhan & another v National Land Commission & 3 others (Environment & Land Petition E018 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 1108 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 11th July 2024, Malindi (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1108/eng@2025-03-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.