Mwenda & another v Mung’athia & 4 others (Land Case Petition E011 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2094 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Meru refused to send officials to collect land evidence for petitioners, ruling that gathering evidence is the parties' own job.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether a proper case has been made to warrant the orders sought in the application dated 26/11/2025, namely a direction to the Land Registrar to visit the locus in quo and an order that the Sub-County Land Surveyor prepare and file a ground verification report
Key legal issues
#Whether the court should direct a site visit by the Land Registrar and a ground verification report by the Sub-County Land Surveyor in a constitutional petition
The application was dismissed; the court cannot gather evidence for a party, as this would compromise its impartiality under Article 50
The court held that under Rule 20 petitions under the Bill of Rights are heard by affidavits, written submissions or oral evidence, with discretion on the court. Inviting the court to direct the Land Registrar and Sub-County Land Surveyor to collect ground-verification evidence would cast the court in a partisan role inconsistent with Article 50's guarantee of an independent and impartial tribunal. The responsibility to gather evidence lies with the parties. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the applicants.
Legal principles established
#- The responsibility to gather evidence and place it before a court seized of a constitutional petition is that of the parties; it is not within the province of the court to undertake the partisan role of gathering evidence to bolster or weaken a party's case
- Hearing of petitions under the Bill of Rights is governed by Rule 20 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules 2013, which allows hearing by affidavits, written submissions or oral evidence, and empowers the court to call witnesses on its own motion
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 26/11/2025 is rejected and dismissed for lack of merit
- 2.The applicants shall bear the costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Bill of Rights jurisdiction under the Constitution, governed by the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules 2013
Relief refused
#Order directing the Land Registrar, Igembe Central, to visit the locus in quo (Athiru/Ruuujine/Ndoleli/1372, 1371, 1817 and 2016) to ascertain ground size occupation vis-à-vis the registry index maps
The court cannot assume the partisan role of gathering evidence for a party; the responsibility to gather and place evidence before the court is that of the parties
Order directing the Sub-County Land Surveyor, Igembe Central, to prepare a ground verification report and file it in court within seven days
Same reasoning; no proper case made for the orders sought
Costs
The applicants shall bear costs of the application
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 responsibility to gather evidence and place the evidence before a court seized of a constitutional petition is that of the parties to the petition; it is not within the province of the court to undertake the partisan role of gathering evidence that would bolster or weaken the case of a party to a petition.
For the above reasons, the court comes to the finding that no proper case has been made to warrant issuance of the orders sought in the application dated 26/11/2025. The result is that the said application is rejected and dismissed for lack of merit. The applicants shall bear costs of the application
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment's case title/number is not stated in the text provided; the case number is unascertainable from the judgment
The 1st respondent's written submissions are dated 20/1/2025 while the supporting chronology suggests they should post-date the affidavit of 9/12/2025, suggesting a typographical error
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwenda & another v Mung’athia & 4 others (Land Case Petition E011 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2094 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2094/eng@2026-04-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.