Dofu & 3 others v Ngome & 7 others (Constitutional Petition E021 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3896 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a petition challenging a Minister's land adjudication decision, ruling that judicial review—not a constitutional petition—is the only proper route.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELC to entertain a constitutional petition challenging a Minister's decision under Section 29 of the Land Adjudication Act
The court lacks jurisdiction; the petition is incompetent and must be struck out
The Ministerial Panel's decision under Section 29 of Cap 284 is final in mandatory terms. Quasi-judicial bodies under the Act may only be challenged through the court's supervisory jurisdiction by way of judicial review, particularly under Article 47 and the Fair Administrative Action Act. The petitioners' allegations of constitutional violations (Articles 25(c), 27(1), 40(1), 47(1), 48, 60(1)(b), 63, 65) could not cure the wrongful invocation of jurisdiction; a petition cannot be used to re-litigate or appeal a concluded adjudication process.
The test for a valid preliminary objection
The Mukisa Biscuit test applies: a PO must raise a pure point of law on admitted facts
Relying on Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd and the Court of Appeal in Attorney General v Andrew Maina Githinji, the court reaffirmed that a preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law, with the facts pleaded by the other side taken as correct and no fact requiring ascertainment. Jurisdiction is a proper subject of a PO and must be decided at the earliest opportunity, as jurisdiction is everything.
Whether alleged constitutional violations permit a petition instead of judicial review
No - where a specific statutory remedy exists, it must be strictly followed
Although the court accepted that constitutional rights may have been infringed in the ministerial appeal process, and that review of administrative action is anchored in Article 47 and the Fair Administrative Action Act, the petitioners still had to pursue judicial review. Citing Speaker of National Assembly v Karume, the court held the special statutory procedure must be strictly adhered to; the constitutional petition route was therefore improper.
Legal principles established
#- Decisions of the Minister/Ministerial Panel on appeal under Section 29 of the Land Adjudication Act are final, and challenges to them lie only through judicial review, not by petition or ordinary suit
- Where the Constitution or an Act of Parliament prescribes a clear procedure for redress, that procedure must be strictly followed
- A petition used to challenge a final ministerial decision under the Land Adjudication Act is an impermissible appeal through the back door and is incompetent
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition is struck out in its entirety
- 2.Costs of the petition awarded to the respondents (petition struck out 'with costs')
- 3.The application dated 10 December 2024 for conservatory orders was not considered, having become academic
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 25(c), 27(1), 40(1), 47, 48, 60(1)(b), 63 and 65 of the Constitution (as invoked by the petitioners); challenged under Section 29 and Section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap 284
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.
- Limo & another v Walter (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 1 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 892 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 892 (KLR)16 Feb 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Dofu & 3 others v Ngome & 7 others (Constitutional Petition E021 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3896 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the extract provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3896/eng@2025-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.