Keittany & 8 others v Land Registrar Uasin Gishu & 5 others; Changwony & 280 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6211 (KLR)

The court found these grounds marred with factual issues requiring reference to evidence or exercise of judicial discretion. The facts concerning land allocation within Sergoit Holdings Grounds and the legality of titles issued are contested, so an objection premised on them cannot be sustained as a pure point of law under the Mukhisa Biscuit test.

The court held that unlike the factual grounds, the objection on jurisdiction goes to the root of the case and is capable of determination purely on law, on the assumption that the pleaded facts are correct. It therefore qualified as a proper preliminary objection and had to be determined on its merits.

The court held the petitioners' claim arises from compulsory acquisition between 1972 and 1985, compensation by allocation of alternative land within Sergoit Holdings Grounds, and resultant titles under the National Land Titling programme. These raise questions under Article 40 on the right to property and public-interest issues such as conduct of public officers and decimation of water catchment areas, which cannot be properly decided in an ordinary civil suit.

Guided by Anarita Karimi Njeru and Mumo Matemu, the court tested whether the petitioners pleaded with precision the provisions infringed and the manner of infringement. It found paragraphs 5.3 and 5.4 sufficient, reinforcing its conclusion that the dispute properly belongs before the constitutional court.