Bel-Bur Plc v Sang & 25 others; Chepkulul & another (Interested Parties) (Legal administrators and representatives of the Estate of Magerer Arap Chepkulul - Deceased) (Environment and Land Petition 4 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 8387 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Belbur lost its bid to cancel land titles because its company property dispute belonged in an ordinary civil suit, not a constitutional petition.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Petition met the precision threshold required of constitutional petitions
It did not; the Petitioner failed to demonstrate with precision the violations of Article 40 and the actors responsible.
Applying Anarita Karimi Njeru and Mumo Matemu, the court examined the particulars of violation in paragraph 34 of the Petition. It found no allegations against the Cabinet Secretary, no clarity on what the Land Registrar did beyond registering owners, and that the core complaint was the internal allocation of company land by its own officials - a civil claim, not a constitutional violation.
Whether the Petitioner's right to property under Article 40 was infringed
No; the evidence showed distribution of company property among members, not state compulsory acquisition or deprivation.
The court distinguished Wilfred Juma Wasike, where government built a police station on private land. Here the available evidence was that the property was distributed amongst members of the company, and the dispute centred on directorship and management of the company rather than any state interference with property.
Whether the constitutional forum was proper given alternative remedies
The Petitioner approached the court through an improper channel; the dispute should have been pursued by a plaint.
Relying on the doctrine of constitutional avoidance (K K B v S C M, CCK v Royal Media Services, Bernard Murage), the court held that constitutional petitions address violations of fundamental rights, while disputes of this nature - essentially corporate and proprietary disputes - must be pursued through proper legal channels, specifically a plaint.
Legal principles established
#- A constitutional petition must set out with reasonable precision the provisions said to be infringed and the manner of infringement (Anarita Karimi Njeru principle).
- Where a statute provides a procedure for resolving grievances, that procedure must be followed before constitutional redress is sought (constitutional avoidance).
- Internal company disputes over directorship and distribution of company property are civil claims, not constitutional petitions.
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition dated 6th March 2020 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the Petition awarded to the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22(1) and 40 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 (constitutional petition for violation of the right to property)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bel-Bur Plc v Sang & 25 others; Chepkulul & another (Interested Parties) (Legal administrators and representatives of the Estate of Magerer Arap Chepkulul - Deceased) (Environment and Land Petition 4 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 8387 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 6th March 2020 (Nakuru ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8387/eng@2025-11-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.