County Government of Kiambu & 3 others v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Lands, Public Works, Housing and Urban Development & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7187 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed it can hear Kiambu County's challenge to the national government's takeover of local markets, dismissing the government's jurisdictional objection.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the matter.
- 2.Whether the Preliminary Objection is merited.
Key legal issues
#Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction over a petition alleging takeover of county markets by the national government despite the intergovernmental dispute resolution framework
The Court has jurisdiction; the dispute falls within Section 13(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act and raises constitutional questions that the IGRA mechanisms cannot adjudicate.
The Court traced its jurisdiction to Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, finding the reliefs sought arise from interests in land. Relying on the Supreme Court's Nicholus decision and other authorities, it held that exhaustion and constitutional avoidance are not absolute where fundamental rights of individuals are alleged to be violated, and that IGRA mechanisms are ill-equipped for such claims.
Whether the Preliminary Objection is merited
It is not merited and is dismissed with costs in the cause.
Having found jurisdiction, the Court held the objection, though a genuine pure point of law, failed because the petition raises constitutional issues touching on property and socio-economic rights that only the ELC can determine; the intergovernmental mechanisms cannot adjudicate them.
Legal principles established
#- The existence of an alternative intergovernmental dispute resolution mechanism does not automatically bar a constitutional petition where fundamental rights violations are alleged and the alternative remedy is inadequate.
- The IGRTC cannot adjudicate constitutional matters related to land and violation of rights; that jurisdiction belongs to the Environment and Land Court.
- Where a suit primarily seeks to enforce fundamental rights and freedoms not merely framed as bootstraps, it is not barred by the doctrine of exhaustion.
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection dated (against the Petition and Notice of Motion dated 26/03/2025) is dismissed.
- 2.Costs of the Preliminary Objection shall be in the cause.
- 3.It is so ordered.
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 read with Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court 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.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IGRTC) cannot adjudicate Constitutional matters related to land and the violation of rights; that jurisdiction belongs exclusively to the Environment and Land Court (ELC).
While Courts generally prefer the exhaustion of alternative dispute resolution methods, from the Supreme Court case referenced above it has clarified that the existence of other remedies does not automatically bar a party from filing a Constitutional Petition if those remedies are insuficient.
Since I already found that the Court has jurisdiction, then this Preliminary Objection is not merited. The Objection is dismissed with costs being in the cause. It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently refers to the parties, describing the County Government of Kiambu as 'the Petitioner' but elsewhere referring to 'the 2nd to 4th Petitioners' as private citizens, and '1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Petitioners' in the coram, although the opening paragraphs describe only one Petitioner and four Respondents.
The case list contains a garbled citation for one authority relied on by the Petitioner.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Kiambu & 3 others v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Lands, Public Works, Housing and Urban Development & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7187 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Petition with Notice of Motion dated 26/03/2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7187/eng@2025-10-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.