Anyanga v National Irrigation Authority & 3 others (Environment & Land Petition E007 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 1405 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A landowner seeking compensation for government taking of land must first go to the Land Acquisition Tribunal, not the High Court, or the case will be struck out.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court has jurisdiction over a petition whose core issue is compensation for compulsory acquisition
The petition was struck out; the central issue being compensation for compulsory acquisition, the petitioner must first present the grievance to the Land Acquisition Tribunal
The petitioner's complaint was that his land was taken and converted into paddy fields without compensation, with specific claims for special and general damages founded on sections 143–149 of the Land Act. Section 133C(6), introduced by the Land (Value) Amendment Act, 2019, requires such matters to go first to the Land Acquisition Tribunal. The court would have appellate jurisdiction over the Tribunal's decisions. The petitioner filed no submissions to contest the jurisdictional objection and did not contend that the Tribunal was inaccessible. The exhaustion doctrine, as articulated by the Court of Appeal, required the court to avoid jurisdiction.
Whether the claimed constitutional violations could be entertained by the court notwithstanding the existence of the Tribunal
The constitutional violations claimed were all derivative of the non-payment of compensation, and could be addressed within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, which extends to complaints under Articles 23(2) and 47(3) of the Constitution
The court observed that if compensation had been paid, the other claimed constitutional violations would not have arisen. Section 133C(8) empowers the Tribunal to hear and determine complaints arising under Articles 23(2) and 47(3) of the Constitution using the framework of the Fair Administrative Action Act. Since the petitioner did not demonstrate any inability to access the Tribunal, the court declined to hear the petition in the first instance.
Legal principles established
#- Where a dispute resolution mechanism exists outside courts, it must be exhausted before the jurisdiction of the courts is invoked; courts are fora of last resort
- Under section 133C(6) of the Land Act, matters relating to compulsory acquisition of land or creation of wayleaves, easements and public rights of way must in the first instance be referred to the Land Acquisition Tribunal
- Where there is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, the court ought to avoid jurisdiction and allow the other mechanism to first be exhausted, even where it otherwise has jurisdiction over the subject matter
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is struck out
- 2.Each party to bear his/her own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (articles 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 40, 42, 43, 47 invoked in the petition); court declined jurisdiction in favour of the Land Acquisition Tribunal under section 133C(6) of the Land Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Anyanga v National Irrigation Authority & 3 others (Environment & Land Petition E007 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 1405 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1405/eng@2025-03-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.