Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedPetition dated 09/05/2022 (Bungoma ELC)· [2025] KEELC 3117 (KLR)

Mechumo v National Land Commission & 3 others (Constitutional Petition E003 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 3117 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
27 March 2025
ECE. C. Cherono
3,052 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Anglican Church lost its land case because it couldn't prove who damaged the property—screenshots without a proper evidence certificate were thrown out.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioner, the Bishop of the Anglican Church of Kenya Bungoma Diocese, petitioned the Environment and Land Court at Bungoma claiming that the congregation had occupied LR No. North Malakasi/South Wamono/142 since 1952, and that the respondents, without notice, deposited construction materials and excavated the land with a view to evicting the church, contrary to Articles 47, 50, 60 and 67 of the Constitution and Sections 152, 152E, 152G and 155 of the Land Act. He sought a declaration of violation of Article 47 and a declaration that the construction was null and void. The 4th respondent (CDF Sirisia) had been struck out by a ruling of 27/01/2023. The 1st respondent (National Land Commission) denied involvement in any construction and absence of cause of action; the 2nd respondent (County Government of Bungoma) denied participation in the complained acts and challenged the admissibility of the petitioner's screenshot evidence under Section 106B of the Evidence Act. The court framed three issues: whether the petition met the constitutional petition threshold; whether Articles 47 and 50 were violated; and costs. It found the petition pleaded with sufficient precision under the Anarita Karimi Njeru rule, but held the petitioner bore the burden of proving the acts and their attribution. The screenshots were inadmissible absent a Section 106B(4) certificate, and even if considered, did not link the respondents to the excavation. The petition was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the petition met the threshold of a constitutional petition

Holding

The petition met the Anarita Karimi Njeru precision threshold

Reasoning

The petitioner conceded the land is registered to the County Government and anchored his grievance on Articles 47 and 50 and the Land Act eviction provisions. The court found he pleaded a constitutional claim to an interest in the land with reasonable precision, so the petition passed the threshold test.

p. 5
02

Whether the respondents violated the petitioner's rights under Articles 47 and 50

Holding

No violation proved; petition dismissed

Reasoning

Although no notice was issued to the petitioner, the respondents denied involvement in the excavation and construction. The petitioner's screenshot evidence was inadmissible for want of a Section 106B certificate, and even if considered, the images did not link the respondents to the acts. He who alleges must prove, and the claim failed for want of evidentiary foundation.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A constitutional petition must set out with reasonable precision the complaint, the provision infringed and the manner of infringement (Anarita Karimi Njeru rule)
  • Allegations of constitutional violation must be proved by clear evidence and cannot be decided in a factual vacuum
  • Electronic records must be produced with a certificate under Section 106B(4) of the Evidence Act to be admissible
  • Eviction from public land requires notice by the National Land Commission at least three months before eviction under Section 152C of the Land Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The petition is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 47(1), 50(1), 60, 67
  • Land ActSections 152, 152A, 152B, 152C, 152D, 152E, 152G, 155, 155(2)
  • Evidence ActSections 106B(1), 106B(4)(a)-(d)

Cases cited (11)

  • Anarita Karimi Njeru vs. Attorney General
    (1979) KLR 154
  • Mumo Matemu vs. Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance and Others
    Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 290 of 2012
  • Leonard Otieno vs. Airtel Kenya Limited
    (2018)
  • Bartholomew Dome vs. County Government of Bungoma
    Petition No. 3 of 2017 and ELC Petition No. 5 of 2018
  • Justice and Peace Centre Kitale v. National Land Commission & 3 Others (as consolidated with Isaiah Wanyonyi & 42 Others v. National Land Commission & 3 Others and Transnational Times Sacco LTD v. National Land Commission & 3 Others
    Kitale ELC Petition Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of 2018
  • Njoki Wainaina alias Mama Kanyonyo v Josphat Thuo & Others & National Land Commission
    (2019) eKLR
  • Kenya Assemblies of God Trustees & Another v Obuya & 5 Others
    (2024) eKLR
  • Gatiaru Peter Munya v. Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others
    Civil Application No. 5 of 2014 (2014) eKLR
  • Republic v. Barisa Wayu Matugunda
    (2011) eKLR
  • County Assembly of Kisumu & 2 Others v. Kisumu County Assembly Service Board & 6 Others
    (2015) eKLR
  • Mbui & Another v. Mbui
    (Environment & Land Case 154 of 2017) [2022] KEELC 2203 (KLR) (27 May 2022 Ruling)
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 47, 50, 60 and 67 of the Constitution; Land Act, 2012 (Sections 152A–152E, 155)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mechumo v National Land Commission & 3 others (Constitutional Petition E003 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 3117 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 09/05/2022 (Bungoma ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3117/eng@2025-03-27

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.