Ashish Ravat & Chandrakant Vinodkumar Ramdatmall Pal v County Government of Kisumu & City Manager, Kisumu City
The bottom line
#Kisumu's county government must pay two developers over Kshs. 34 million for demolishing their buildings without notice, hearing, or a court order.
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' constitutional rights were violated by the Respondents
- 2.Whether the Petitioners are entitled to the orders sought in the petition
- 3.Who should pay the costs of the petition
Key legal issues
#Whether the petition raised constitutional questions or was essentially a civil land/trespass dispute
The court held the petition was essentially a trespass/land ownership claim but proceeded to determine it on the merits rather than strike it out
The court applied the constitutional avoidance principle from the Supreme Court in Communications Commission and other authorities, observing that the issues framed (ownership, trespass, damages) were resolvable in a civil suit. However, it chose to consider the petition on its merits to avoid determining it on issues not raised, reserving the right to revisit the point.
Whether the Petitioners are the lawful owners of the suit properties
As between the Petitioners and the Respondents, the Petitioners are the lawful owners
The Petitioners produced certificates of title and proof of purchase, which are prima facie evidence of indefeasible ownership under sections 24-26 of the Land Registration Act and sections 27-28 of the repealed Registered Land Act. The Respondents did not prove fraud or illegality to the required standard, and claimed through schools that were not parties and had not established their claims in any forum.
Whether the Respondents demolished the Petitioners' structures and violated their rights
The Respondents demolished the structures without notice, hearing or court order, violating the Petitioners' constitutional right to property under Article 40
The Respondents admitted the demolition in their replying affidavit and press statement. The letter of 14th January 2021 from the schools made no reference to the suit properties and contained no authority to demolish. It was not for the Respondents to determine the legality of the Petitioners' titles; dispossession requires due process.
Whether the suit properties form part of Plot No. 244 allocated to Kisumu Boys and Kisumu Girls High Schools
The court could not determine with finality whether the suit properties are part of Plot No. 244 because the schools are not parties
The schools hold the registered lease for Plot No. 244 and claim the suit properties were illegally carved from it, but they were not joined. Determining their rights without hearing them would breach natural justice. The legality of the titles must wait for another forum.
What relief and damages the Petitioners are entitled to
Declaration, permanent injunction, special damages of Kshs. 24,222,240/- and general damages of Kshs. 10,000,000/- granted; Chapter 6 declaration, mandatory injunction and trespass damages refused
The declaration and injunction followed from the finding of illegal demolition. Special damages were limited to amounts actually proved. The Chapter 6 declaration failed because it was sought against an office, not an individual. The mandatory injunction failed for want of proof of Respondents' occupation. Trespass damages were refused as duplicative of constitutional compensation.
Legal principles established
#- A claim of a general civil nature arising from a civil wrong should not be brought as a constitutional petition if it raises no constitutional question requiring determination (constitutional avoidance)
- Registered proprietors hold title free from all other interests and claims, and a certificate of title is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership subject only to the statutory exceptions
- Even where property is alleged to be illegally acquired, it cannot be dispossessed without due process; a State organ may not itself determine the legality of a title
- A single act of trespass on registered land cannot attract two heads of damages - both trespass damages and constitutional compensation
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the actions of the Respondents complained of were illegal, unconstitutional, null and void
- 2.A permanent injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering with the Petitioners' use and possession of Title Nos. Kisumu Municipality/Block 6/608 to 6/613 and from settling or otherwise putting third parties in possession of the properties
- 3.Special damages of Kshs. 24,222,240/- with interest at court rates from the date hereof until payment in full
- 4.General damages of Kshs. 10,000,000/- for contravention and breach of the Petitioners' fundamental rights and freedoms, with interest at court rates from the date hereof until payment in full
- 5.The costs of the petition to the Petitioners
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 22(1) and 23 of the Constitution of Kenya, through the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules 2013
Relief refused
#Declaration that the 2nd Respondent contravened Chapter 6 of the Constitution, the Leadership and Integrity Act and the Public Officer Ethics Act
Such findings can only be made against individuals, not an office; the Petitioners should have sued the holder of the office in his personal name
Mandatory injunction compelling the Respondents to vacate the suit properties and restore possession
No evidence linked the Respondents to the traders occupying the suit property; the Respondents are not in occupation
General damages for trespass
Would duplicate the award for violation of the constitutional right to property arising from the same act of trespass
Special damages as claimed (Kshs. 25,437,140/-)
Reduced: no evidence for change of use and design fees; only actual payment of Kshs. 23,981,525/- for development plus Kshs. 240,715/- plan approval fees proved
Costs
The costs of the petition awarded to the Petitioners
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.
claims of a general civil nature, brought to redress civil wrongs, although they may contain allegations of constitutional violations, need not be brought as constitutional petitions if they do not raise constitutional questions that require determination.
I see no reason why a constitutional court should be called upon to settle a land ownership dispute or to assess damages from acts of trespass.
It is therefore my finding that, as between the Petitioners and the Respondents, the Petitioners are the lawful owners of the suit properties.
it is clear that even where property is said to be illegally acquired; it cannot be dispossessed without due process.
The Respondents' declaration of the Petitioners as grabbers of public land reserved for public institutions and the arbitrary entry and demolition of the apartments which were under construction on the suit properties was a violation of the Petitioners' constitutional right to property.
I will therefore not make any award for trespass, as I believe this would amount to duplicating awards in the circumstances.
In conclusion, I hereby enter judgment for the Petitioners against the Respondents for:
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment written and signed at Mombasa by one judge but delivered and countersigned at Kisumu by a different judge on a later date
Special damages figure stated inconsistently within the judgment
Judgment date of 2026 postdates the 2025 submissions and 2024 document bundle by an unusually long interval
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ashish Ravat & Chandrakant Vinodkumar Ramdatmall Pal v County Government of Kisumu & City Manager, Kisumu City", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Petition No. E010 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5822/eng@2026-09-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.