[2020] KEELC 1649 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 1649 (KLR)

The court found that only the 2nd petitioner, as the registered proprietor of the suit property, had a valid cause of action under Article 40 of the Constitution. The 1st and 3rd petitioners failed to demonstrate any proprietary interest or basis for a claim. The 1st respondent failed to issue an enforcement notice...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 1649 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Anthony Njoroge; Applicant: Susan Nyawira Mathenge; Applicant: Janto Investments Limited; Respondent: County Government of Nairobi; Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 4 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
Petition by 2nd petitioner allowed against 1st respondent; petition by 1st and 3rd petitioners dismissed; petition against 2nd respondent abandoned.
Judges
BM Eboso
Legal Topics
Right to Property, Due Process in Demolition, Compensation for Property Damage, Enforcement Notices, Public Authority Liability
Source Language
en
Land and Property Constitutional Law Right to Property Due Process in Demolition Compensation for Property Damage Enforcement Notices Public Authority Liability

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Njoroge

Applicant

Susan Nyawira Mathenge

Applicant

Janto Investments Limited

Applicant

County Government of Nairobi

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the 1st respondent violated the 2nd petitioner's right to property under Article 40 of the Constitution by demolishing developments on her land without due process.
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd petitioner is entitled to damages for the demolition of her property.
  3. 3 Whether the 1st and 3rd petitioners have a cause of action under Article 40 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that only the 2nd petitioner, as the registered proprietor of the suit property, had a valid cause of action under Article 40 of the Constitution. The 1st and 3rd petitioners failed to demonstrate any proprietary interest or basis for a claim. The 1st respondent failed to issue an enforcement notice or follow due process as required by Sections 38 and 39 of the Physical Planning Act before demolishing the 2nd petitioner's developments. The evidence of lack of due process was uncontroverted, as the 1st respondent did not file any substantive response. The court held that the demolition constituted a violation of the 2nd petitioner's right to property. However, since the...

Court Disposition

Petition by 2nd petitioner allowed against 1st respondent; petition by 1st and 3rd petitioners dismissed; petition against 2nd respondent abandoned.

Orders

  • Petition against the 2nd respondent is marked abandoned with no order as to costs.
  • Petition by the 1st and 3rd petitioners is dismissed for lack of merit, with costs to the 1st respondent.