Yegon (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Kipyegon Arap Kirui - Deceased) v Ekaterra Tea Company Limited (Formerly Kenya/Unilever Tea Kenya Ltd) & 2 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E002 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 5694 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Petition has been pleaded with reasonable precision.
- 2.Whether the suit parcel as defined is identifiable and whether the court, in the circumstances, can grant any orders in respect of it.
- 3.Whether the petition is in fact a land ownership dispute.
- 4.Whether the court has jurisdiction to determine questions pertaining to Historical Land Injustices, whether the Petitioner's claim on historical land injustices is res judicata and whether the Petitioner proved his claim that a historical land injustice was committed against him.
- 5.Whether the Petitioner proved his claim against the 2nd Respondent.
- 6.The legal effect of the letter dated 21st August, 2023 by the Petitioner's Counsel in relation to the petition.
- 7.Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the other orders sought in the Petition.
- 8.Who should bear costs of the Petition?
Key legal issues
#Whether the Petition was pleaded with reasonable precision
The Petition is incompetent for want of reasonable precision as to the rights violated, by whom and in what manner.
Relying on Anarita Karimi Njeru and Mumo Matemu, the court held that precision in framing constitutional violations is not a technicality curable under Article 159. The Petitioner pleaded omnibus constitutional provisions; only the 1st Respondent conceded precision on Article 40, and the court held a contrary view, noting Article 40 protects against State deprivation and is not available between private citizens.
Whether the suit parcel is identifiable
The suit parcel was not identifiable with certainty and no orders could be granted in respect of it.
The description in the Petition (the triangle per Minute 40/56) contradicted the Petitioner's later claim that the ten acres formed part of LR No. 12629. The Minute named no individuals or exact acreages. The court found the description contradictory and held that resolving the conflict would require oral and documentary evidence.
Whether the petition is in substance a land ownership dispute
Yes; the dispute relates to title, ownership and occupation of land and should not be litigated as a constitutional petition.
Applying constitutional avoidance as explained in Communications Commission v Royal Media Services and Naitore M'iburi, the court held that impeachment of a registered title is an ordinary land dispute requiring tested evidence. Allegations of fraud were not pleaded or proved as required by Vijay Morjaria.
Jurisdiction over historical land injustices and res judicata
The ELC has jurisdiction over historical land injustice claims and the claim was not res judicata since the NLC never determined it; but the Petitioner failed to prove a historical land injustice.
Following Chief Land Registrar v Nathan Tirop Koech and prior in-court rulings, the court restated its jurisdiction. The NLC letter of 26th September 2017 merely advised pursuit of compensation and was not a determination. On the merits, the Petitioner did not prove displacement or any of the section 15(3) National Land Commission Act grounds.
Claim against the 2nd Respondent and entitlement to compensation/mesne profits
The claim against the 2nd Respondent failed for want of proof; compensation and mesne profits failed as unpleaded and unproved special damages.
Section 107 of the Evidence Act places the burden on the Petitioner. The valuation report and agricultural officer's letter did not relate to a proved parcel, lacked authentication and strict proof, and quantification would require evaluation of evidence unsuitable for a constitutional petition.
Legal principles established
#- A constitutional petition must plead with reasonable precision the provisions infringed, by whom and the manner of infringement; non-compliance is not a mere technicality curable under Article 159.
- The Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine claims of historical land injustice whether or not the National Land Commission is seised of the matter.
- Where a complaint of historical land injustice has not been determined by the National Land Commission, it is not res judicata; a mere advisory letter is not a final determination.
- A dispute over title to, ownership and impeachment of title to land requires evidence to be adduced and tested in an ordinary suit, not a constitutional petition; the principle of constitutional avoidance applies.
- Without prejudice communications made in settlement negotiations cannot be used against a party in subsequent proceedings.
- The right to property under Article 40 protects against State deprivation and is not available as between private citizens.
- Special damages, including mesne profits and compensation, must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition dated 27th July, 2022 is dismissed.
- 2.Costs of the Petition to the Respondents.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (Environment and Land Court), read with Articles 22, 23, 40, 67 and Section 15(3)(b) of the National Land Commission Act
Relief refused
#Declaration that the disputed portion of land belongs to the estate of Kipyegon Arap Kirui (deceased) and restitution of the ten acres
The suit parcel was not identified with certainty; the claim was in substance a land ownership dispute unsuitable for determination by constitutional petition; the claim of historical land injustice was not proved under section 15 of the National Land Commission Act.
Permanent injunction restraining the 1st Respondent from trespass, occupation or use of the disputed portion
Follows the dismissal of the ownership claim; the court could not say with certainty which parcel was in dispute.
Compensation of current value of ten acres and mesne profits for 55 years
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved; such claims require evaluation of evidence and are unsuitable for a constitutional petition.
Order directing the 2nd Respondent to survey and issue title deed to the estate
The Petitioner bore the burden of proving his own facts and could not blame the 2nd Respondent for not supplying documents.
Costs
The Petition is dismissed with costs to the Respondents (costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act).
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.
In the result, I find that the Petition dated 27th July, 2022 lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed with costs.
I find that the petition is incompetent for failure to plead with reasonable precision the rights violated, by whom violated and in what manner they are violated. Further the right to property as enshrined under Article 40 is not available as between private citizens.
For the avoidance of doubt, I shall restate that the Environment and Land court has jurisdiction to entertain claims arising out of historical land injustices.
The National Land Commission's letter dated 26th September, 2017 cannot be construed to be a determination on the question whether or not the Petitioner suffered a historical land injustice.
The Petitioner has not proved an occurrence of any of the factors set out in section 15(3) of the National Land Commission Act to qualify his claim as being a historical land injustice.
I am unable to grant any orders in respect of it. I cannot say with certainty that both parties refer to one and the same parcel of land.
As was held in the above cited judicial decisions, without prejudice communication is protected and the letter dated 21st August, 2023 has no legal effect in so far as determination of this petition is concerned.
It is now settled that costs shall follow the event. This is in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21 Laws of Kenya).
Issues in the judgment
#The petition number is not stated in the judgment; the suit is identified only by its filing date (Petition dated 27th July, 2022).
The Petitioner's own description of the suit parcel is internally contradictory: in the Petition it is the 'triangle' described in Minute 40/56, but in his later affidavit he claims the ten acres form part of LR No. 12629. The court expressly noted the contradiction.
Errors in dates and references within the pleadings as reproduced, e.g. the NLC letter is elsewhere correctly dated 26th September, 2017 but the Petitioner's submissions refer to '26th September 2027 (sic)', and the affidavit references letter No. CR/59/178 dated 14th May, 1963 certifying a plan said to be dated 22nd July, 1963 but 'certified' on 18th July, 1963.
The Petitioner is inconsistently described as administrator of the estate of 'Kipyegon Arap Kitur' at the opening and 'Kipyegon Arap Kirui' throughout the rest of the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Yegon (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Kipyegon Arap Kirui - Deceased) v Ekaterra Tea Company Limited (Formerly Kenya/Unilever Tea Kenya Ltd) & 2 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E002 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 5694 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 27th July, 2022 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5694/eng@2025-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.