Rado Development Company Limited v County Government of Kisumu & another (Environment and Land Petition E003 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 7403 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the impugned notice violated the Petitioner's rights to property, fair hearing and fair administrative action
The court found the Respondents issued the notice and thereby threatened the Petitioner's right to property and violated its rights to fair hearing and fair administrative action.
The notice declared the suit property public parking/playground and required vacation within 7 days failing demolition, without notice or hearing. Only a court may determine under Article 40(6) that a title was unlawfully acquired. The Respondents had approved the Petitioner's developments and permits for years, and could not be judges in their own cause.
Whether the Respondents' cross-petition seeking cancellation of the Petitioner's title was properly before the court
Declined; the cross-petition raised purely civil claims of fraud and illegality outside the court's Article 22 and 23 jurisdiction.
A claim to recover land allegedly acquired illegally is a civil claim, not a constitutional one; the constitutional avoidance principle applies where a remedy exists in civil law. Further, the property was charged to Bank of Africa Limited, a third party with an interest and a right to be heard before the title is nullified.
Whether the Respondents issued the impugned notice dated 9th December 2020
The court was satisfied the Respondents issued and affixed the notice, notwithstanding DW1's denial.
The notice bore the 1st Respondent's letterhead and was signed by the 2nd Respondent. The Petitioner's advocates wrote to the 2nd Respondent the day after it was affixed; the Respondents never denied issuing it, and later justified it in the cross-petition and submissions as lawful enforcement of the public interest.
Legal principles established
#- A finding that property was unlawfully acquired under Article 40(6) of the Constitution can only be made by a court of law through due process; state organs cannot dispossess a registered proprietor without due process.
- Claims of fraud or illegality in acquisition of land are civil claims outside the jurisdiction conferred by Articles 22 and 23 and should be pursued in a court exercising civil jurisdiction.
Court orders
#- 1.A prohibitory order restraining the Respondents jointly and severally from entering upon or attempting to demolish the structures on Title No. Kisumu Municipality/Block 9/111 pursuant to the notice dated 9th December 2020 or otherwise interfering with the Petitioner's quiet possession and enjoyment of the suit property
- 2.A declaration that the Public Notice dated 9th December 2020 is null and void and of no legal consequence to the extent that it relates to the suit property
- 3.A declaration that the Respondents threatened and violated the Petitioner's constitutional rights to property and fair administrative action
- 4.A declaration that the Respondents acted capriciously, arbitrarily, and abused and exceeded their lawful powers
- 5.Costs of the petition awarded to the Petitioner
- 6.The Respondents' cross-petition dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution; Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules 2013
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rado Development Company Limited v County Government of Kisumu & another (Environment and Land Petition E003 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 7403 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition (not stated in judgment as provided; petition filed 16th December 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7403/eng@2025-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.