Kathumba & another (Suing as legal representative of the Estate of the Late John Kathumba Makuthi) v Kenya Airports Authority & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E061 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 989 (KLR) (20 February 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 989 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI ENVIRONMENT AND LAND PETITION E061 OF 2022 TW MURIGI, J FEBRUARY 20, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 3(1), 10, 22(1) AND (2) (A) AND 165(3) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLE 40 READ WITH 260 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF THE RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLE 19, 20, 21(1), 24, 25(A), 26, 27, 40 AND 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT (CHAPTER 295 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA (NOW REPEALED) PETITION E061 OF 20221 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LAND ACT 2012 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE KENYA AIRPORTS AUTHORITY ACT (CHAPTER 395 LAWS OF KENYA) https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/989/eng@2026-02-20 1
page 1 of 2
AND IN THE MATTER OF L.R. NO 7075/3 WITHIN JOMO KENYATTA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (JKIA) LAND L.R. NO. 21919 BETWEEN LITHA KATUMBI KATHUMBA AND AMINA MBULA KATHUMBA (SUING AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE JOHN KATHUMBA MAKUTHI) ..................................................................... PETITIONER AND KENYA AIRPORTS AUTHORITY ............................................. 1ST RESPONDENT THE CABINET SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND PHYSICAL PLANNING .................................................................................... 2ND RESPONDENT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ...................................................... 3RD RESPONDENT RULING 1. The dispute herein involves the law firms of Echessa Bwire & Co Advocates and E.W Kamuyu & Co Advocates, each asserting that it is duly instructed to represent the Petitioners. 2. The contest has resulted in uncertainty about who is duly on record. 3. An Advocate derives authority from the client’s instructions. When a dispute arises regarding representation, the Court’s primary duty is to determine who holds valid instructions. Where representation is contested and cannot be resolved from the record alone, the Court may require clarification from the litigant. In the matter at hand, each Advocate claims to have valid instructions. The dispute goes to the root of the proceedings because any step taken by an Advocate without authority would be a nullity. 4. The court finds that the most prudent course in the circumstances is to determine the true position from the Petitioners. 5. In light of the foregoing, the Petitioners shall attend court to confirm the Advocate duly instructed to act on their behalf. RULING SIGNED, DATED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026. ............................... HON. T. MURIGI JUDGE In the presence of: Ndegwa holding brief for Bwire for the Petitioner. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/989/eng@2026-02-20 2
page 2 of 2