Wanjala & 9 others v Keter & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition 2 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2738 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Land Court cancelled a settlement plot sale because officials bypassed known squatters without notice, but stopped short of granting ownership.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the petitioners' rights to property and fair administrative action were violated by allocating and selling the suit land to the 1st and 2nd respondents while they were known to be in occupation
Yes - the allocating authority knew of the petitioners' occupation (confirmed in its own ground and status reports) yet bypassed them in the reallocation, violating Articles 40 and 47 and the Article 27 right to equality
The 3rd respondent's own site-visit reports of 7/10/2020 and 16/10/2020 captured the petitioners squatting on Plot 177 and recommended reallocation of the plot. Its officers 'encouraged' the squatters to apply. The 1st respondent's application was written on behalf of all squatters, yet only the 1st and 2nd respondents were allocated the land without notice or hearing to the petitioners. Bypassing known occupants breaches Article 47 fair administrative action and Article 27 non-discrimination.
Whether the petitioners had a legitimate expectation to be considered for allocation
Yes - the ground and status reports recommending reallocation and the assurance that squatters be considered created a legitimate expectation that was not honoured
The court applied the Fanikiwa -vs- Sirikwa principle that a public body must honour expectations its conduct has induced, subject to legality. The 3rd respondent's reports recorded the petitioners and recommended their reallocation; the 2nd respondent's application was made on behalf of squatters generally. Allocating the whole 22 Ha to only the 1st and 2nd respondents, without justifying the criteria used, could not stand and amounted to discrimination.
Whether the repossession and reallocation of Plot 177 was lawful
No - no evidence of lawful repossession or cancellation of the original charge before reallocation; the Settlement Fund Trustees' action was procedurally invalid
DW3 admitted there were no records showing the initial allottee was notified of default or breach, or served with a repossession notice. The petitioners argued, and the court accepted per M'Mugwika M'Rugongo, that absence of repossession notices, cancellation documents and land control approvals renders the re-allocation procedurally invalid. However, the original allottee's estate had no perfected proprietary interest either, having paid only a 10% deposit in breach of the charge.
Legal principles established
#- Legitimate expectation arises where a public authority's conduct (including its own ground reports and recommendations) leads persons to expect they will be considered in reallocation; legality requires primacy
- Procedural fairness under Article 47 is mandatory before administrative action affecting persons known to be in occupation of public land
- Failure to produce repossession notices, cancellation documents or land control board approvals renders Settlement Fund Trustees' reallocation procedurally invalid
- Constitutional property protection under Article 40 extends broadly to possessory interests such as licences and occupation
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the petitioners' rights to property and to fair administrative action have been violated by the respondents by allocating and selling Plot No. 177 Maridadi Settlement Scheme to the 1st and 2nd respondents
- 2.A declaration that the outright purchase of Plot No. 177 Maridadi Settlement Scheme by the 1st and 2nd respondents and the sale by the 3rd and 4th respondents is illegal and violates the petitioners' fundamental rights to own property
- 3.A declaration that the petitioners have a right to be considered as potential allottees of Plot No. 177 Maridadi Settlement Scheme, just like the 1st and 2nd respondents, by virtue of their long occupation
- 4.A declaration that the sale of Plot No. 177 Maridadi Settlement Scheme to the 1st and 2nd respondents by the 3rd and 4th respondents is null and void, and was subject to the overriding interests of the petitioners
- 5.The petitioners are directed to submit a formal application for allocation of Plot No. 177 Maridadi Settlement Scheme with the 3rd respondent for consideration alongside the 1st and 2nd respondents within 3 months, in line with the law
- 6.Costs of the petition to the petitioners
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 23(1) of the Constitution (enforcement of Bill of Rights); Article 165 jurisdiction of the High Court/ELC over the alleged violations
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wanjala & 9 others v Keter & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition 2 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2738 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Constitutional Petition dated 22/2/2024 (ELC Kitale). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2738/eng@2026-05-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.