Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the judgment text (petition dated 11th October 2024)· [2026] KEELC 1102 (KLR)

Thebe v Charo & 4 others (Environment and Land Petition E016 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1102 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
24 February 2026
MNMwangi Njoroge
1,316 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Malindi land judge stepped aside from a constitutional petition after discovering he had already ruled on a dispute involving the same land and parties.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Kahindi Kambi Thebe filed a petition dated 11th October 2024 in the Environment and Land Court at Malindi seeking declarations that the failure by the Kaloleni Land Disputes Tribunal and the Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee Coast, or their successors, to enable him to pursue an appeal against Land Award Number 39 of 1999 violated his constitutional rights under Articles 10, 19, 20, 21, 27, 35, 40, 47, 50(1), 60(1)(b), 165 and 259 of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act 2015. He also sought an order admitting his Appeal Number 71 of 2008 for hearing by the ELC at Malindi, together with costs. He narrated that the appeal, admitted before the defunct Appeals Committee, was caught up in the transition following the repeal of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act and was ultimately struck out after transfer, leaving him without a forum. The petition was set down for judgment on 24th February 2026. However, while preparing to deliver judgment, the judge checked the court records and discovered that he had himself delivered a ruling on 31st July 2024 in Thebe v Charo & 2 others [2024] KEELC 5671 (KLR), a matter concerning the same land and the same parties, of which neither counsel nor the parties had alerted him. He concluded it was improper for him to hear and determine the petition, vacated the judgment date, and directed the parties to appear on 11th June 2026 for further directions before a different court. The petition was accordingly not determined on the merits and no costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the petition could properly be heard and determined by this judge

Holding

No - the judge recused himself on his own motion upon discovering he had earlier given a ruling in a matter relating to the same land and parties

Reasoning

While preparing the ruling the judge checked the CTS records and confirmed he had delivered a ruling in Thebe v Charo & 2 others [2024] KEELC 5671 (KLR) on 31st July 2024, concerning the same land and parties. Neither counsel nor the parties had alerted him to this. He concluded it was improper for him to hear and determine the petition, and vacated the scheduled judgment date, directing the parties to appear for further directions before a different court.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A judge who has previously dealt with the same dispute between the same parties should not hear and determine a subsequent matter concerning that dispute and should give directions for the matter to be handled by a different court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The date for judgment scheduled for 24th February 2026 is vacated
  2. 2.Parties or counsel ordered to appear in court on 11/6/2026 for further directions to be made in their presence before a different court
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 165 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 (original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a constitutional petition)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Thebe v Charo & 4 others (Environment and Land Petition E016 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1102 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment text (petition dated 11th October 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1102/eng@2026-02-24

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.