Mbubi & 12 others v Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited & another (Environment and Land Petition 5B of 2020) [2026] KEELC 4583 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Petitioners should have filed a constitutional petition when their claim arose from a simple contract for damages to crops
- 2.Whether the constitutional rights of the Petitioners under Article 40(3) were violated
- 3.Whether the Petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought in the petition
Key legal issues
#Whether the petition was the proper procedural vehicle
An ordinary civil suit, not a constitutional petition, was the proper vehicle for a contractual dispute over varied crop compensation assessments.
The bone of contention was the change from the 2011 assessment to the 2014 reassessment. Such a challenge to contractual variation, lacking a pleaded constitutional deprivation, belonged in an ordinary suit by plaint. The court noted Eboso J's earlier observation of 5th February 2018 that the petition lacked quantified amounts.
Whether Article 40(3) rights were violated
No violation established: no Petitioner claimed land was taken without compensation, and seasonal crops are personal property, not permanent fixtures forming part of the land.
Evidence showed compensation was offered and paid for land taken (e.g., the 11th Petitioner paid Kshs.156,364.88 for 2.79 acres). The claims concerned crop damage compensation under an agreement, not deprivation of property. Therefore Article 40(3) was not breached.
Whether the Petitioners proved entitlement to the sums claimed
Claims would have failed in any event: the signed 2014 reassessments were binding, coercion was neither pleaded nor proved, and most Petitioners never testified to prove their amounts.
The 2011 crop damage reports were found grossly exaggerated; a meeting agreed to reassessment and Petitioners signed fresh assessments. Fraud/coercion particulars were absent from the petition. Under sections 107-108 of the Evidence Act the Petitioners bore the burden of proof, which they failed to discharge.
Legal principles established
#- A claim that arises from a simple contract (variation of crop damage assessments) should be brought as an ordinary civil suit, not a constitutional petition.
- Once parties agree to a reassessment and sign it, it is a binding contract; a court cannot rewrite contracts absent pleaded and proved coercion, fraud or undue influence.
- Allegations of fraud or coercion must be pleaded; submissions cannot substitute for evidence.
Court orders
#- 1.The Petitioners' petition is dismissed
- 2.Costs awarded to the Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional jurisdiction under Article 40 and Article 47 of the Constitution (petition for violation of property rights)
Relief refused
#Declaration of violation of Article 40 rights
No Petitioner alleged the land was taken without compensation; claims concerned seasonal crops, not deprivation of land
Compensation in the specific sums claimed (prayer b)
Claims not proved; majority of Petitioners never testified
Inquiry into just compensation with payment and interest
Petitioners came with specific amounts and failed to prove them; no basis for an inquiry
Costs
Costs to the Respondents - "The same is dismissed with costs to the Respondents."
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.
It is therefore clear that this constitutional petition should have better been brought by way of an ordinary suit.
I therefore find that the constitutional rights of the Petitioners under Article 40 (3) were not violated.
Submissions cannot be a substitute for evidence.
I find that the Petitioners’ petition is devoid of merit. The same is dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#Delivery date anomaly: the judgment recites submissions dated 2025 yet states delivery on 20th July 2026, and labels itself a 'RULING' though it decides a petition.
Identity of the 2nd Respondent not expressly named in the text; only described by role.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mbubi & 12 others v Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited & another (Environment and Land Petition 5B of 2020) [2026] KEELC 4583 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4583/eng@2026-07-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.