Wanjohi & another v County Government of Uasin Gishu (Environment & Land Petition E006 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 5076 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Uasin Gishu County illegally shut two Eldoret markets without consulting traders, and the court ordered the traders restored with costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Public participation under Article 10(2)(a)
The closure of the two markets without inviting the legitimate stall owners to give comments, suggestions and solutions violated Article 10(2)(a).
The traders had a subsisting legal relationship via Letters of Allocation renewed for three years from 1st September 2022. The Respondent was under a duty in law to communicate any intention to close the markets before deciding. The 14-day period in the Health Notice gave ample time for participation, and neither the notice nor the criminal proceedings of 24th November 2022 justified its omission.
Fair administrative action under Article 47 and Section 5 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act
The Respondent failed to comply with Section 5 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act, 2015 and infringed Article 47.
Section 5 requires an administrator to issue public notice of an intended administrative action, consider views of affected persons and give reasons with appeal mechanisms. The Respondent demonstrated no such compliance before closing the markets, and withheld the purported County Security Committee resolution, demonstrating non-compliance with Article 47.
Right to property under Article 40(1)
No infringement established; Petitioners failed to prove ownership of the impounded goods.
Under Section 107 of the Evidence Act the Petitioners bore the burden of proving ownership of goods allegedly destroyed or impounded on 17th and 18th November 2022, or at least identifying the specific vehicles carrying them. No documents, inventory or vehicle registration particulars were produced, so the claim failed.
Right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 42
Claim failed for lack of evidence of unhygienic conditions in the alternative markets.
The Petitioners were expected to produce at least a health report from a public health expert or photographs demonstrating congestion and lack of hygiene facilities at Kahoya and Kimumu markets. In the absence of such evidence, the court could not make a declaration of infringement of Article 42.
Legitimate expectation
The public notice of 2nd September 2022 renewing the allotments for three years created a legitimate expectation that the closure infringed.
The Respondent publicly offered and effected renewal of the 2019 Letters of Allotment for a further three years from 1st September 2022, as shown by its own notice and annexed allotment letters. Closing the markets on 17th and 18th November 2022 defeated that expectation.
Irrationality, unreasonableness and bad faith
The closure was unreasonable, irrational and in bad faith.
The Health Notice of 4th November 2022 only demanded improvements within 14 days and did not direct closure; the proceedings of 24th November 2022 produced no closure order, only a bond for an official. Since the cited justifications did not support the closure, the decision was found to be irrational, unreasonable and taken in bad faith.
Legal principles established
#- A public body must communicate and allow public participation before making a decision that adversely terminates or alters the rights of persons in a legal relationship with it
- A party alleging infringement of property rights bears the burden of proving ownership of the property
- A public notice offering renewal of allotments creates a legitimate expectation enforceable against the issuing authority
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the Respondent's decision to close Eldoret Champions Market and 64 Market on 17th and 18th November 2022 violated Articles 10(2)(a) and 47 of the Constitution and breached the Petitioners' legitimate expectation, and is null and void
- 2.Declaration that the decision to relocate members of the 2nd Petitioner to Kahoya and Kimumu markets without complying with Articles 10(2)(a) and 47 infringed their constitutional rights and is null and void
- 3.Order of certiorari quashing the decisions of 17th and 18th November 2022 to close the two markets and to relocate the 2nd Petitioner's members to Kahoya and Kimumu markets
- 4.Order of mandatory injunction compelling the Respondent to restore the Petitioners to their legitimate stalls and open spaces within Eldoret Champions Market and 64 Market based on the 2019 allocation as renewed by the public notice of 2nd September 2022, within 60 days or upon completion of the renovated and upgraded markets
- 5.Costs of the petition granted to the Petitioners, payable by the Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional petition jurisdiction under Article 22 & 23 of the Constitution (Constitution of Kenya, 2010), read with the pleaded Articles 10(2)(a), 40(1), 42 and 47
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wanjohi & another v County Government of Uasin Gishu (Environment & Land Petition E006 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 5076 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 26th December 2022 (Eldoret ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5076/eng@2025-07-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.