Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC PET NO. E001 OF 2025· [2026] KEELC 2987 (KLR)

Torobeek Community v County Commissioner, Laikipia West & 4 others (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2987 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
13 May 2026
LMLUCY N. MBUGUA
1,666 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court dismissed the Torobeek Community's eviction petition because they could not prove ownership of the land they claimed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Torobeek Community petitioned the Environment and Land Court at Nanyuki seeking declarations that their forced eviction from suit parcels Mutara/Thome Block (Thome IV) 3521 and 2962 on 25.2.2025 violated Articles 28, 29, 40, 43 and 47 of the Constitution, together with orders of restraint, compensation and restoration. The petitioners claimed they had lawfully purchased the two parcels, each measuring 2 acres, from Martin Macharia Kogi. The respondents, through a replying affidavit of Barasa Wafula, the Deputy County Commissioner Laikipia West, contended that the suit parcels hosted a camp of makeshift structures in squalid conditions without sanitation, and that the petitioners' leaders collected registration fees from members under false promises of government land allocations. The matter proceeded by written submissions. The court framed two issues: the petitioners' proprietary rights and the alleged forceful and unlawful eviction. Applying Section 107 of the Evidence Act and the Maitai decision, the court held the burden of proof lay on the petitioners, who simply pleaded ownership without the evidence required, adding that proprietary claims should have been brought in an ordinary suit. The court further found it impermissible that 537 members would share 4 acres, contrary to Article 60(1), noted the inconsistency between the purchase claim and the communal land claim, observed that resettlement is a National Government function under Section 134 of the Land Act, and invoked Article 24(d) on limitation of rights given the health and security risks of the camp. The petition was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Burden of proof on the petitioners

Holding

The onus lay on the petitioners to prove their claim of ownership and unlawful eviction, which they failed to do

Reasoning

Relying on Section 107 of the Evidence Act, Halsbury's Laws of England and the Maitai case, the court held the legal burden remains constant throughout the trial. Assertions of ownership should have been tabled before an ordinary suit, not a petition, and evidence from the actual evictees was required to prove the manner of eviction.

p. 8
02

Claim to communal resettlement of 537 members on 4 acres

Holding

It is not logical or permissible for 537 members to share 4 acres; the claim flies against Article 60(1) on equitable, efficient, productive and sustainable management of land

Reasoning

The court found each parcel measures 2 acres (4 acres total) yet the members number about 537. The petitioners' claim of purchase from Martin Macharia Kogi is also inconsistent with their communal land claim, showing confusion over Article 61's classification of land.

p. 8
03

Resettlement functions and limitation of rights

Holding

Resettlement is a National Government function under Section 134 of the Land Act, and the petitioners' rights must be weighed against environmental and planning concerns under Article 24(d)

Reasoning

The court noted the camp of makeshift structures posed health and security risks, as recorded in its ruling of 17.9.2025. Land use, planning and environmental protection are anchored in law, so the petitioners' rights are subject to limitation under Article 24(d). Settlement of squatters and IDPs falls to the National Government under Section 134 of the Land Act.

p. 10

Legal principles established

#
  • The burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the truth of the issue in dispute, and filing a claim as a petition does not exempt a party from the law on evidence

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The petition is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party is to bear their own costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 24(d), 28, 29, 40, 43, 47, 60(1), 61
  • Fair Administrative Action Actnil
  • Land ActSections 152, 134
  • Evidence ActSection 107

Cases cited (2)

  • Mitubell Welfare Society v Kenya Airports Authority & Others
    (2021) KESC
  • Samson S. Maitai & another V. African Safari Club Limited & Another
    [2010] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 28, 29, 40, 43 and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 invoked in the petition filed in the Environment and Land Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Torobeek Community v County Commissioner, Laikipia West & 4 others (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2987 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC PET NO. E001 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2987/eng@2026-05-13

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