Jaribu Credit Traders Limited v The Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Interior & Administration, Nairobi City County Government & The Honourable Attorney General
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court declared a Cabinet Secretary's 24-hour riparian demolition notice void because no law gave the CS power to issue it.
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 respondents were justified in law in issuing a demolition notice over the petitioner's land alleging it falls within a riparian zone
- 2.Whether a subsequent redefinition or expansion of riparian reserve limits can be applied retroactively to deprive the petitioner of its land without due process under Article 40(3) as read with section 28 of the Land Registration Act
- 3.Whether the petitioner's rights under Articles 27(1), 40(3) and 47(1) and (2) of the Constitution were violated
- 4.Whether the 1st respondent's 2nd May 2024 notice complied with the Constitution, the Fair Administrative Action Act and statutory frameworks on riparian land and evictions
Key legal issues
#Validity of the 1st respondent's 24-hour demolition/evacuation notice
The notice was ultra vires and a nullity; the C.S. had no power under the cited laws and regulations on riparian land to issue it, and no prescribed notice under form LA 57 and the Land Regulations 2017 was issued
The court surveyed the Survey Act, EMCA, Water Act, Land Act, Land Registration Act and Physical and Land Use Planning Act and found no provision empowering the Cabinet Secretary to issue the notice. The respondents admitted non-compliance with constitutional and statutory imperatives. Citing Macfoy, an ultra vires act is a nullity.
Whether the petitioner's land falls within a riparian reserve
The respondents failed to establish on a scientific basis that the property falls within a riparian reserve; no mapping or definition by the Director of Surveys or scientific report was supplied
The court found no evidence that NDOC or the multi-agency teams considered high and low water marks, seasonal rivers, buffer zones, the historical survey record or ground conditions by way of a scientific report. The Director of Surveys, the authority on boundaries, supplied no mapping, and the deed plan was never recalled or invalidated.
Whether riparian designation converts private land to public land
Riparian regulations impose management controls and restrictions on use but do not transfer ownership of private land to WRA or the public
Relying on Njogu v Sino Hydro Corporation Ltd and Superior Homes v Water Resources Authority, the court held that declaration of land as riparian does not affect proprietorship but imposes management and land-use controls on the proprietor.
Fair administrative action and right to be heard
The 24-hour notice without hearing breached Article 47, the Fair Administrative Action Act and rules of natural justice; the notice was null and void
The petitioner was not allowed to represent its case before demolition was scheduled. The respondents' invocation of urgency and El Niño rains did not justify dispensing with fair administrative procedure; the court found the respondents admitted non-compliance in their pleadings.
Legal principles established
#- A state officer may only act within the powers conferred by law; action beyond statutory authority is ultra vires and a nullity
- Where riparian land runs through private land, the adjoining private land does not automatically become public land under Article 62
- All evictions, including demolition of unauthorised structures, must be done in accordance with the law
- Only NLC under section 11 of the Land Act can act on endangered or protected land
Court orders
#- 1.The court allowed prayer no. II of the petition (declaration that the 1st respondent's order of 2/5/2024 breached Article 47, the Fair Administrative Action Act and rules of natural justice and is null and void)
- 2.The rest of the prayers were not substantiated and were not granted
- 3.There will be no orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23, 258 and 260 of the Constitution; Environment and Land Court jurisdiction under section 3 of EMCA
Relief refused
#Declaration that demolition of L.R. No. 209/7994/7 infringed Articles 27(1), 40(3), 47(1) and 47(2)
Not substantiated; only prayer II allowed
Injunction barring respondents and multi-agency teams from interfering with the subject property
Not substantiated
Order of restitution restoring the property to its state as at the date of the petition
Not substantiated
Alternative compensation for repair costs of damage
Not substantiated
Costs
There will be no orders as to costs.
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.
The C.S. had no such powers in the alluded raft of law and regulation on riparian land, zones and reserves. The 1 st respondent acted ultra vires. A nullity is a nullity as held in Macfoy vs United Africa Co. Ltd.
The court only allows prayer no. II. The rest of the prayers have not been substantiated. There will be no orders as to costs.
Where a water body runs through private land, the private land adjoining the riparian land does not automatically become public land under Article 62 of the Constitution.
All evictions must be done in accordance with the law, including demolition of unauthorised structures.
the notice dated 2nd May 2024 cannot pass the constitutional and statutory master as to whether the petitioner's land falls under riparian land in the 1st instance
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment dated 30 September 2026 but cites decisions dated 2026 as authority
Property number inconsistency between petition and respondents' reply
Respondent's name misspelt in the cause title
Prayer (e) refers to non-existent prayer (v)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jaribu Credit Traders Limited v The Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Interior & Administration, Nairobi City County Government & The Honourable Attorney General", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Petition No. E013 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6276/eng@2026-09-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.