[2015] KEHC 3302 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 3302 (KLR)

The court adopted the consent of the parties as its order, recognizing that the petitioners had raised arguable constitutional issues regarding the right to property and fair hearing. The interim orders were necessary to preserve the status quo and prevent further construction or interference with the subject...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 3302 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: George Maiti Atobi; Applicant: Peter Mugendi; Applicant: Jacob Mionki Itabara; Applicant: Mithika M'Mungania; Applicant: Jediel Akula Mioro; Applicant: Joshua Baariu; Applicant: Mungathia Mwirichia; Respondent: Eunice Karema Kaberia; Respondent: Minister for Trade and Commerce Meru County Government; Respondent: The Governor Meru County; Respondent: Honourable Attorney General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Constitutional Petition 42B of 2014
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Consent Order; Interlocutory Stage
Outcome
Consent order adopted; interim injunctive relief granted; directions for submissions issued.
Legal Topics
Right to Property, Fair Hearing, Public Land Use, Injunctive Relief
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Land and Property Right to Property Fair Hearing Public Land Use Injunctive Relief

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Maiti Atobi

Applicant

Peter Mugendi

Applicant

Jacob Mionki Itabara

Applicant

Mithika M'Mungania

Applicant

Jediel Akula Mioro

Applicant

Joshua Baariu

Applicant

Mungathia Mwirichia

Applicant

Eunice Karema Kaberia

Respondent

Minister for Trade and Commerce Meru County Government

Respondent

The Governor Meru County

Respondent

Honourable Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Consent Order; Interlocutory Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' construction activities infringed the petitioners' constitutional rights under Article 40 (right to property).
  2. 2 Whether the petitioners are entitled to interim injunctive relief pending determination of the petition.
  3. 3 Whether due process and fair hearing rights under Article 50 were observed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court adopted the consent of the parties as its order, recognizing that the petitioners had raised arguable constitutional issues regarding the right to property and fair hearing. The interim orders were necessary to preserve the status quo and prevent further construction or interference with the subject property pending the hearing and determination of the petition. The consent also set out a clear timetable for the exchange of written submissions, ensuring procedural fairness and expeditious resolution. The court's decision was grounded in the need to protect constitutional rights and maintain the integrity of the judicial process while the substantive issues await determination.

Court Disposition

Consent order adopted; interim injunctive relief granted; directions for submissions issued.

Orders

  • The Petitioners' applications dated 16th December 2014 and 29th June 2015 are dispensed with.
  • The Respondents shall cease any constructions on Muringene Ultra Modern Market and the garbage receptacle forthwith pending hearing and determination of the petition.