Lorunyei & another v Attorney General & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition 1 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3053 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's land court ruled that the Turkana community's ancestral land in Samburu was unlawfully taken for KDF use without consultation or compensation, ordering payment within 18 months.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Status of the suit land: community land or public land
The suit land is unregistered community land of the Turkana community under article 63(2)(d)(i) and (ii), held in trust by the County Government of Samburu under article 63(3)
The petitioners' evidence, including pre-colonial reports and testimony of ancestral occupation, grazing use and burial of ancestors, aligned with the constitutional and statutory definitions of community land. The 2014 declaration of a Kawap Adjudication Section recognised the community's legitimate rights. The respondents led no evidence of how the land became public land, and failure to complete adjudication does not convert community land into public land.
Whether due process was followed in allocating the suit land to KDF
No due process was followed; the exchange was effected without consultation, valuation, notices or compensation, in blatant violation of article 40, the Community Land Act and the Land Act, rendering Gazette Notice No 2080 of 2021 null and void
The purported exchange under section 12(1)(f) of the Land Act required parcels of equal value, planning, surveying and servicing, none of which was proved. NLC failed to issue the notices required by section 14 of the Land Act, including to marginalised communities in the vicinity. The Turkana community was neither consulted nor compensated, so the transaction amounted to unlawful compulsory acquisition of community land.
Whether the petitioners' rights were violated, including discrimination and marginalisation
The Turkana community's rights under articles 10, 27, 40, 47 and 56 were violated; the exchange conferred the benefit of returned land on the Samburu while depriving the marginalised Turkana of their land
The Turkana are a relatively small population in Samburu County unable to fully participate in the integrated social and economic life of Kenya, fitting the constitutional definition of a marginalised community. The decision to return KDF land at Maralal to the Samburu while taking Turkana land in Kawap without consultation or compensation was differential treatment lacking reasonable distinction, amounting to discrimination and marginalisation of an already marginalised community.
Jurisdiction of the ELC and exhaustion of remedies
The ELC has jurisdiction over constitutional claims concerning community land and the right to property; section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act does not bar a Bill of Rights petition and the exhaustion argument failed
By virtue of articles 23(1), 162(2) and 165(5)(b) and section 13 of the ELC Act, the ELC is mandated to determine disputes relating to community land and compulsory acquisition and applications for redress of violations of article 40. The section 30 objection was conclusively determined by AC Mrima J on March 10, 2023 and was not appealed, so the court would not revisit it. The 4th respondent did not specify which alternative remedies should have been exhausted.
Legal principles established
#- Unregistered community land does not automatically become public land; it is held in trust by the county government under article 63(3) of the Constitution and section 10(3) of the Community Land Act
- An exchange of community land by a county government without consultation, valuation or compensation amounts to compulsory acquisition in contravention of article 40 of the Constitution
- The ELC has jurisdiction to hear applications for redress of violation of the right to property in the form of land under article 40
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the process of identification, setting aside, and annexation of Turkana community ancestral land in Suguta Valley and Kawap areas by the NLC on behalf of KDF, in conjunction with the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Defence and the County Government of Samburu, was unlawful and void for violating articles 10, 27, 40, 47 and 56 of the Constitution
- 2.An order of certiorari quashing Gazette Notice No 2080 of February 4, 2021
- 3.NLC directed to initiate forthwith and conclude the compulsory acquisition of the suit land for purposes of prompt payment of full and just compensation to members of the Turkana community, to be paid in full within eighteen months of the date of the judgment
- 4.A consultative team comprising the petitioners, three other Turkana community leaders and five representatives nominated by the 1st, 3rd and 4th respondents to be constituted within 14 days to oversee and facilitate participation of the Turkana community in determination and payment of compensation
- 5.The consultative team to ascertain and compile a full list of displaced and directly affected members of the Turkana community
- 6.The consultative team to ensure an inclusive, meaningful (non-tokenistic) participation process taking into account women (including widows), children, the elderly, youth and persons with disability
- 7.The consultative team to liaise with NEMA to ensure sustainable utilisation, management and conservation of the natural environment in Suguta Valley and Kawap in compliance with article 69 of the Constitution
- 8.The 3rd respondent in conjunction with the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Lands and Settlement to undertake survey, adjudication and registration of the remainder of the Turkana Community land in Kawap
- 9.The respondents in consultation with other State organs to design and implement affirmative action programmes and formulate policies to redress land injustices and disadvantages suffered by the Turkana community in Kawap
- 10.The 3rd respondent to take measures to include representatives of the Turkana community in decision making in Samburu County
- 11.The petitioners awarded the costs of the petition, to be borne jointly by the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 23(1), 162(2), 165(5)(b) of the Constitution and section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (6)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kinanta & 2 others v Principal Secretary Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development & 7 others (Environment and Land Petition E003 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3713 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 3713 (KLR)18 Jun 2026
- Turkana Indigenous People Action for Development (TIPD) v Turkana County Government & 5 others (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2971 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 2971 (KLR)15 May 2026
- Turkana Indigenous People Action for Development (TIPD) v Turkana County Government & 5 others (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2971 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 2971 (KLR)15 May 2026
- Ngimor & 554 others (Suing on their behalf and on behalf of residents of Endugh, Kasei, Sekerr, Masol, Lomut and Weiwei Ward in West Pokot County) v Northern Rangelands Trust & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition 7 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 7461 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 7461 (KLR)30 Oct 2025
- Simoit & 2 others v Baringo County Government & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7081 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 7081 (KLR)2 Oct 2025followed
- Tirishe & 2 others v Tata Chemicals Magadi Limited & 2 others; County Government of Kajiado & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Constitutional Petition E003 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 2991 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 2991 (KLR)26 Mar 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lorunyei & another v Attorney General & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition 1 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3053 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition No E105 of 2021 (originally Milimani High Court Constitutional and Human Rights Division Petition No E105 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3053/eng@2025-03-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.