Jura v National Irrigation Authority & 3 others (Environment & Land Petition E009 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 1414 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Landowners disputing wayleave compensation in Kenya must go to the Land Acquisition Tribunal first before filing a court petition.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the petition is in substance a claim for compensation for compulsory acquisition referable to the Land Acquisition Tribunal
Yes. The core issue in the petition is compensation for compulsory acquisition; if there had been compensation, the other claimed constitutional violations would not have arisen.
The petitioner alleged that wayleaves and public rights of way were created over his land without notice, valuation, registration or compensation, and claimed special and general damages. The petition itself invoked Sections 143 to 149 of the Land Act, which prescribe the process for creating wayleaves, with Section 148 providing for compensation. Section 133C(6) of the Land Act, introduced by the Land (Value) Amendment Act, 2019, mandates first-instance referral of such matters to the Land Acquisition Tribunal.
Whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction notwithstanding the existence of an alternative dispute resolution mechanism
No. The Court, though having jurisdiction over the subject matter, ought to avoid jurisdiction where an alternative mechanism has not been exhausted, absent any reason why the Tribunal is inaccessible.
The Court adopted the Court of Appeal's pronouncement in Geoffrey Muthinja on the exhaustion doctrine, which accords with Article 159 of the Constitution on alternative dispute resolution. The petitioner, despite being given opportunity, advanced no submissions or reason why he could not access the Land Acquisition Tribunal. Accordingly, the petitioner must first exhaust the dispute resolution mechanism provided before approaching the Court.
Legal principles established
#- Where a dispute resolution mechanism exists outside courts, the same must be exhausted before the jurisdiction of the courts is invoked; courts are fora of last resort
- 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 an alternative mechanism exists, a court with jurisdiction may nonetheless decline to exercise it pending exhaustion of that mechanism
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is struck out
- 2.Each party to bear his/her own costs
- 3.Orders accordingly
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 40 of the Constitution (property rights petition); jurisdiction contested on the basis of Section 133C(6) of the Land Act vesting first-instance jurisdiction in the Land Acquisition Tribunal
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, "Jura v National Irrigation Authority & 3 others (Environment & Land Petition E009 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 1414 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1414/eng@2025-03-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.