Andoyi v Constituency Development Fund Board Emuhaya Cosntituency & 3 others (Constitutional Petition E002 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5263 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed a landowner's petition because he skipped the legal appeal process for boundary disputes and failed to prove any constitutional rights violation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether or not the petition meets the threshold for constitutional petitions.
- 2.Whether or not the petition has merit.
- 3.What orders to make.
Key legal issues
#Whether the petition met the constitutional petition threshold
The petition failed the Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold as it merely listed constitutional provisions without pleading particulars of breach or evidence
The petitioner invoked articles 40, 47, 48, 51(1), 64 and 68 but did not relate them to his complaint or exhibit any particulars of how they were breached. The court held that mere listing of provisions without proof of infringement cannot sustain a constitutional petition.
Whether a boundary-determination grievance may be brought by constitutional petition
No; the Land Registration Act provides an appeal to the Environment and Land Court against a Registrar's boundary determination, and that route must be used
The dispute was a boundary complaint determined by the Land Registrar under the Land Registration Act and its 2017 Regulations. Section 86 grants an aggrieved party a right of appeal to the Environment and Land Court. Dissatisfaction with the outcome cannot be recast as a constitutional violation.
Whether the Registrar's decision was tainted by hearsay or bias
No evidence supported the hearsay or bias allegations; the record showed a properly conducted process with party evidence and an expert surveyor's report
The Registrar issued summons, held a site hearing attended by the parties, counsel and administration officers, and relied on a surveyor's report with ground measurements. The petitioner adduced nothing to displace the expert report, so the bias and hearsay claims failed even on the merits.
Legal principles established
#- A petitioner must set out with reasonable precision the complaint, the constitutional provisions infringed and the manner of infringement
- Where a statute provides a specific procedure for challenging an administrative decision, a party must follow it and may not convert the grievance into a constitutional petition
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is hereby dismissed.
- 2.Costs are awarded to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (constitutional petition invoking articles 40, 47, 48, 51(1), 64 and 68)
Relief refused
#Declaration that the Land Registrar's ruling dated 17/7/2023 amending the map for West Bunyore/Emusire/1726 violated articles 40, 64 and 68 and is invalid ab initio
Petition failed the Anarita Karimi Njeru precision threshold; no particulars or evidence of breach pleaded or exhibited
Order of certiorari quashing the ruling dated 17th July 2023
The statute provides an appeal to the Environment and Land Court as the remedy against a Land Registrar's boundary determination; a constitutional petition is not a permitted route
Demolition of developments and permanent eviction of the 1st Respondent from West Bunyore/Emusire/1726
No evidence of boundary interference; surveyor's report showed no encroachment
Costs of the petition against the Respondents jointly and severally
Costs were instead awarded to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents
Costs
Costs are awarded to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The court finds that the petition herein fails to meet the constitutional threshold.
Where the law has provided a procedure to be followed to access the remedy desired, parties should adhere to the procedure. The court finds that petition is improperly before the court.
the petitioner having failed to invoke the available appellate procedure is now precluded from invoking the jurisdiction of the court through constitutional petition.
The petition is hereby dismissed.
Costs are awarded to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#Petition number not stated in the judgment; only the filing date (2nd November 2024) is given
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Andoyi v Constituency Development Fund Board Emuhaya Cosntituency & 3 others (Constitutional Petition E002 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5263 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 2nd November 2024 (Vihiga). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5263/eng@2025-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.