Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutKericho Constitutional Petition (Petition dated 19th June, 2025)· [2026] KEELC 2934 (KLR)

Maina (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Kitur Arap Koech) & another v County Government of Kericho & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2934 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
14 May 2026
5,975 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~24 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a landowners' constitutional claim, saying land disputes belong in ordinary civil suits, not petitions.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioners, administrators of the estate of Kitur Arap Koech, registered owner of Kericho/Nyamanga/240 (8.5 acres), petitioned against Kericho County Government and officials. They alleged that in 2005 the Bureti County Council, the 1st Respondent's predecessor, trespassed on a two-acre portion and constructed Cheboin Dispensary without compulsory acquisition under Article 40(3) of the Constitution and the Land Act, registered a caution in 2006, arrested the 2nd Petitioner three times without charge, and in 2025 announced plans to upgrade the facility. They sought declarations, a permanent injunction, compensation at market value, and exemplary, punitive and general damages totalling over Kshs. 190 million. The 1st and 2nd Respondents countered that the deceased donated the land to Bureti County Council in 1971 for a health facility, that the claim was statute-barred under Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act, and that public interest favoured continued service delivery. The court framed three issues: invocation of jurisdiction, entitlement to the orders sought, and costs. Applying the doctrine of constitutional avoidance as articulated in Rumasila, Communications Commission of Kenya v Royal Media Services and KKB v SCM, the court held that the twin factual disputes - whether there was trespass in 2005 or a donation in 1971 - were civil questions requiring oral evidence and could be pursued in a civil court without invoking the Constitution. It declined to grant the prayers sought, struck out the petition and awarded costs to the 1st and 2nd Respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the jurisdiction of the Court was properly invoked

Holding

The Court invoked the doctrine of constitutional avoidance; the disputes over trespass and alleged donation are civil issues of fact requiring oral evidence, not constitutional questions

Reasoning

The parties disputed whether the deceased trespassed/donated the land - twin issues of fact best established by oral evidence. The court relied on Rumasila v Kenya Urban Roads Authority, the Supreme Court in Communications Commission of Kenya v Royal Media Services, and KKB v SCM, holding that where ample statutory avenues exist, ordinary disputes should not be brought before a constitutional court.

p. 13
02

Whether the Petitioners are entitled to the orders sought

Holding

The prayers could not be granted following the finding on jurisdiction

Reasoning

Given the finding that the petition raised civil disputes improperly framed as constitutional questions, the court declined to consider entitlement to the declarations, injunction, compensation or damages sought.

p. 13
03

Costs

Holding

Costs awarded to the 1st and 2nd Respondents as the successful parties

Reasoning

Applying Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, costs follow the event and a successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs unless the court directs otherwise for good reason.

p. 13

Legal principles established

#
  • Where there exist ample statutory avenues for resolution of a dispute, the constitutional court will decline to entertain it under the principle of constitutional avoidance
  • A constitutional issue will not be determined where the matter may properly be decided on another basis
  • Costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Petition is struck out with costs to the 1st and 2nd Respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 2(1)&(3), 10(2)(d), 20(1)&(2), 21, 23, 40(1)&(3), 47, 50, 64, 67, 232
  • Land ActSections 107 to 133; Sections 107, 110 & 112
  • Land Registration ActSections 24, 25 and 26(1)
  • Land Acquisition Act (Repealed)Sections 3, 8, 75 (Cap 295)
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 7
  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21)Section 27

Cases cited (18)

  • Chief Land Registrar & 4 Others vs Nathan Tiro Koech & 4 Others
    [2018] eKLR
  • General v Zinj Limited
    (Petition 1 of 2020) [2021] KESC 23 (KLR) (3 December 2021)
  • Patrick Musimba vs National Land Commission & 4 Others
    [2016] eKLR
  • Juma Wacike & 11 Others vs Ministry of Interior and Co-ordination & another
    [2022] eKLR
  • Evelyn College of Design Ltd vs Director of Children's Department & another
    [2013] eKLR
  • Wilfred Juma Wasike & 11 Others vs Ministry of Interior and Co-ordination & another
    [2022] eKLR
  • Gitobu Imanyara & 2 Others vs Attorney General
    [2016] eKLR
  • John Chumia Nganga vs Attorney General & another
    [2019] eKLR
  • Attorney General vs Zinj Limited
    (Petition 1 of 2020)
  • Rahinkhan Afzalkhan Rahimkhan & 4 Others vs Chief Land Registrar & 2 Others
  • Mombasa West Limited vs National Land Commission & 2 Others
    [2022] eKLR
  • Export Milling Zone (EPZ) Ltd v H. Young & Co. (EA) Limited & 2 Others
    (Environment & Land Case 85 of 2018) [2024] KEELC
  • Odhiambo vs Kenya Railways Corporation & 2 Others
    (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 438 of 2018) [2024] KEELC 7061 (KLR)
  • Rumasila v Kenya Urban Roads Authority & 2 others
    (Environment & Land Petition E006 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 4826 (KLR) (20 June 2024)
  • Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others v Royal Media Services Limited & 5 others
    (Petition 14, 14A, 14B & 14C of 2014 (Consolidated)) [2014] KESC 53 (KLR) (29 September 2014)
  • KKB v SCM & 5 others
    (Constitutional Petition 014 of 2020) [2022] KEHC 289 (KLR) (22 April 2022)
  • S v. Mhlungu, 1995 (3) SA 867 (CC)
    1995 (3) SA 867 (CC)
  • Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority
    297 U.S. 288, 347 (1936)
Jurisdiction invoked
Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (Article 23 - jurisdiction in constitutional petitions; Articles 40, 47 alleged violations)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Maina (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Kitur Arap Koech) & another v County Government of Kericho & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2934 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kericho Constitutional Petition (Petition dated 19th June, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2934/eng@2026-05-14

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