Mutai & 4 others (Representing 31 families /squatters at the Riparian Section in Majengo/Talai Settlement Scheme) v Kericho County Government & 4 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8641 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kericho dismissed squatters' bid to temporarily block title deed issuance, confirming they can sue but ruling their interim orders would bypass a full hearing.
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 Petitioners/Applicants have locus standi to commence the present proceedings
- 2.Whether the Petitioners/Applicants application dated 22nd January, 2025 has merit
- 3.Who should bear costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Locus standi of the Petitioners/Applicants to institute the proceedings
The Petitioners/Applicants have locus standi. Article 22 of the Constitution permits proceedings in one's own interest, on behalf of others, in the interest of a group or class, or in the public interest, and the Applicants sued as squatters, residents and officials/allottees alleging threatened violations
The 3rd and 4th Respondents argued that the Applicants failed to produce a registration certificate for KECOSO or a written authorizing resolution. The court relied on the constitutional standing framework in Article 22(1) and (2) and the decision in Sangahani, holding that any person seeking enforcement of Bill of Rights and environmental rights may petition on their own behalf and for the public, and found standing established.
Whether the interlocutory application dated 22nd January, 2025 has merit
It lacks merit because its prayers are a replica of the substantive prayers in the Petition and granting them would pre-empt the full hearing
The court compared each prayer of the application with the corresponding prayer in the Petition and found them identical, with the only difference being that the application sought them pending the Petition's hearing. Issues such as deposit of primary data, appointment of an independent auditor, pleading specificity and the doctrine of exhaustion were all reserved for the hearing of the Petition.
Costs of the application
Costs awarded to the Respondents, costs following the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
The court applied the settled principle that a successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs unless the court for good reason directs otherwise. Having dismissed the application, the Respondents as the successful parties were awarded costs.
Legal principles established
#- Under the liberalized standing regime of Articles 22 and 70 of the Constitution, any person seeking enforcement of Bill of Rights or environmental rights may file petitions on their own behalf or on behalf of the general public; a person suing as a squatter/resident claiming threatened constitutional violations has locus standi
- An interlocutory application whose prayers replicate the substantive prayers of the Petition cannot be granted, as doing so would determine the Petition at the interlocutory stage
- Costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and a successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 22nd January, 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22(1) & (2) and 70 of the Constitution of Kenya (enforcement of Bill of Rights), with application under Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 8 Rule 3 & 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Temporary preservatory order restraining the Respondents from implementing, processing or issuing title deeds using the Multi-Agency Task Force lists
The prayers in the application are a replica of the substantive prayers in the Petition and granting them would amount to determining the Petition at the interlocutory stage
Deposit in Court of the primary data (soft and hard copies) prepared by the Multi-Agency Task Force
Deferred to the hearing and determination of the Petition
Stay of implementation of the Multi-Agency Task Force Report dated 30/08/2024
Substantive prayer in the Petition, not grantable on an interlocutory application
Appointment and gazettement of an independent firm of Registered Auditors to audit and verify the lists, and gazettement/publication of the final audited list
Substantive prayer to be addressed at the hearing of the Petition
Quashing of all approvals and validations by the Respondents of the lists, reports and minutes of the Multi-Agency Task Force
Substantive prayer in the Petition, not granted at interlocutory stage
Costs of the application borne by the Respondents
Application dismissed; costs follow the event
Costs
The application dated 22nd January, 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
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.
Taking the foregoing into consideration, I find that that the Petitioners/Applicants application dated 22nd January, 2025 lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed with costs.
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).
Essentially the prayers in the application are substantive prayers in the Petition and granting them is akin to determining the Petition at the interlocutory stage.
That being the case, my view is that, the Petitioners/Applicants have locus standi to institute these proceedings.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment identifies the Chief Magistrate (E) ELC/003/2025 only by case number 'ELC/003/2025' without further coram detail beyond the judge; the neutral citation is not given in the document
The court found the Applicants have locus standi yet nonetheless dismissed the application without addressing the respondents' standing-based Grounds of Opposition disposal, reserving substantive issues to the Petition
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mutai & 4 others (Representing 31 families /squatters at the Riparian Section in Majengo/Talai Settlement Scheme) v Kericho County Government & 4 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8641 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 22nd January, 2025 (Constitutional Petition, Kericho). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8641/eng@2025-12-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.