https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8767

Lonyala & 28 others v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Lands Mapping & Physical Planning & 10 others (Constitutional Petition E002 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 8767 (KLR) (23 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8767 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kapenguria Constitutional Petition E002 of 2023 RPV Wendoh, J June 23, 2026 Between Christopher K. Lonyala & 28 Others Petitioner and The Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Lands Mapping & Physical Planning 1st Respondent Director Survey 2nd Respondent National Land Commission 3rd Respondent Hon. Attorney General 4th Respondent and The County Government of West Pokot 1st Interested Party County Government Of Baringo 2nd Interested Party County Government Of Elgeyo Marakwet 3rd Interested Party County Government Of Trans-Nzoia 4th Interested Party County Government Of Turkana 5th Interested Party The Senate 6th Interested Party The Independent Electoral And Boundaries Commission 7th Interested Party Ruling 1.Christopher Kurutyon Lonyala& twenty-eight (28) other petitioners filed the Amended Petition dated 18/11/2023 against the following Respondents,(1)The Cabinet Secretary -Ministry of Land Mapping and Physical planning;(2)Director of Survey;(3)National Land Commission, and(4)The Honourable Attorney General and 2.Interested parties,1.The County Government of West Pokot;2.County Government of Baringo;3.County Government of Elgeyo Marakwet;4.County Government of Trans-Nzoia;5.County Government of Turkana;6.The Senate and7.The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission. 3.The single substantial prayer sought in the amended petition is:-a.An order compelling the Director of Survey of Kenya, the 2nd Respondent by way of mandamus proceedings to demarcate and clearly mark on the ground as shown on the map of Kenya prepared between 1921 and 1942, the boundaries of the 5th to 9th Respondents (Interested parties) of West Pokot in relation to the neighboring counties of Turkana, Baringo, Elgeyo Marakwet and Trans Nzoia;b.Costs of the petition. 4.The petition was filed by the firm of Changorok Sambulei Advocates, Ms. Odeyo appears for the Attorney General for the 1st, 2nd and 4th Respondents; Mr. Otieno appears for the 4th Interested Party, Mr. Ekuro Aukot and Ms. Bosire appear for the 5th interested party while Mr. Macharia of Mukele Advocates appears for the 7th Interested party.Two preliminary objections were filed in response to the petition. 5.The Senate (6th Interested party) filed grounds of opposition dated 22/11/2024 through the firm of Edward Libendi. 6.The first preliminary objection was filed by Ms. Odeyo, Counsel for the 1st, 2nd & 4th Respondent and is dated 7/11/2024. The second preliminary objection was filed by the firm of Aukot for the 5th interested party. The court directed that the Preliminary Objections be dispensed of first through written submissions, and all the Respondents and Interested parties filed their respective submissions in support of the preliminary objection while Mr. Ndinyo, Counsel for the Petitioners, filed his submissions in opposition to the preliminary objection. 7.The 1st 2nd and 4th Respondents preliminary objection dated 7/11/2024 is fourfold;1.That pursuant to Article 188 of the Constitution, this court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this petition;2.That the petitioners have not invoked their rights under Article 119 of the Constitution to petition Parliament to consider any matter within its authority;3.That these proceedings are premature as the petitioner seeks intervention of this Honourable court without first involving and exhausting the mechanisms provided for in the Constitution, the Parliament Procedure Act.4.That the petitioners have not exhausted all the available forms of dispute resolution and hence the petition is not properly before this court.The Preliminary Objection filed by the 5th Interested party, dated 24th January, 2025 is two pronged and is as follows: -1.That the amended petition dated 18/11/2023 offends Article 188(1) of the Constitution 2010, which provides for an elaborate process of alteration of County Boundaries;2.That based on the above, this court has no jurisdiction and the petition is bad in law, incurably defective, an abuse of the court process and should be dismissed. 8.The 6th Interested Party grounds of objection also touched on the issue of jurisdiction under Article 188 of the Constitution and available remedies under Article 119 of the Constitution.Counsel highlighted the submissions. 9.Ms. Odeyo, for 1st, 2nd and 4th Respondents filed her submissions dated 26/2/2025 and identified two issues for consideration namely:-1.Whether this court has jurisdiction to determine this petition;2.Whether the petition is premature and offends the doctrine of exhaustion. 10.Ms. Odeyo opened her submissions by relying on the decision of Nyarangi JA in the Owners of Motor Vessel William’s’ -V- Caltex Kenya Limited (1989) KLR, where the Judge held that the issue of jurisdiction ought to be raised at the earliest opportunity and the court seized of the matter must decide the issue at once; that where the court has no jurisdiction, it must down its tools. She further submitted that Section 188 of the Constitution has suspended or clawed back, or ousted this court’s jurisdiction in disputes relating to the demarcation of County Boundaries; that jurisdiction flows from the Constitution and Statute and the court cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction. For the above proposition, Counsel relied on the case of Samuel Kamau & Another -V- Kenya Commercial Bank & 2 others Supreme Court C/Appeal 2/2011 Counsel submitted that Article 188 of the Constitution establishes a clear frame work that assigns the responsibility of boundary reviews and alterations and explicitly excludes the judiciary; that the roles of Parliament are clearly spelt out and Article 188 (2) clearly states that any proposed change to boundaries must be approved by the Senate; that clearly this petition is calling on the court to alter County boundaries to what was there before in 1921 and 1942; that the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) Act 2011 gives the IEBC power to review County Boundaries; that Inter-Governmental Relations Act provides that disputes over County Boundaries and National Government will be referred to Alternative Dispute’s Mechanism; that the County Governments Act 2012, also places the responsibility of resolving boundary issues on the IEBC not the judiciary. Counsel submitted that the Constitution provides for separation of powers between the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary; that the Judiciary’s role is to interpret and apply the law but not interfere in political issues; that demarcation and alteration of County boundaries relates to political and administrative decisions which fall squarely within the jurisdiction of Parliament. In support of these submissions, Counsel relied on the decision of Speaker of the Senate and Another -V- Attorney General & others (2018) eKLR. where the Judiciary’s role was emphasized. 11.In Kenya National Commission on Human Rights -V- the Attorney General (2015) eKLR the court held that boundary review processes should be carried out in accordance with the Constitutional procedures; that paragraph 34 and 35 of the Amended Petition concedes that a boundary dispute exists between the five counties whose resolution mechanism lies with parliament; that the prayers sought in the petition also refer to demarcation of boundaries to revoke earlier boundaries. Whether the suit is premature and offends the doctrine of exhaustion; 12.Counsel submitted that the doctrine of exhaustion is enshrined in Article 159 (2) ( c) of the Constitution which provides for Alternative Disputes Resolution(ADR) which includes Mediation, Arbitration in resolving disputes; that matters that fall under a specific Constitutional or statutory body, must first be addressed through those bodies before they can be brought to court; that the Constitution has erected a structured non judicial mechanisms for dispute resolution on County Boundary disputes and that procedure must be strictly followed and only brought to court if the bodies have acted unlawfully; that the doctrine of exhaustion mandates that whoever feels aggrieved by the boundary review process, must exhaust the Constitutional and statutory mechanisms available; that sections 88,89,184 and 189 of the Constitution provides for issues pertaining to boundary administration and demarcation which ousts the jurisdiction of the court; that Section 21 of the 6th schedule to the Constitution also provides that any boundary issue be dealt with in accordance with the Constitution. Counsel relied on Halsbury’s Laws of England Volume 10 page 723 which requires that where a statute creates an obligation and enforces the performance of it in a specified manner, the general rule is that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner. This rule was considered in the cases of Isiolo County Assembly Service Board and Another -V- The Principal Secretary Devolution) Ministry of Devolution and Planning and other; NRB Constitutional Petition 370/2015 (2016) eKLR and Geoffrey Mathiga Kabiru & 2 others -V- Samuel Munga Henry & 1756 Others (2015) eKLR. 13.It was Counsel’s further submission that the petitioners failed to invoke their rights under Article 119 of the Constitution. She submitted that Article 119 of the Constitution empowers a citizen to petition parliament to consider the issues of boundary demarcation; that the process requires Parliament to engage with the public and hear their concerns and it gives a clear Constitutional process for addressing concerns regarding County boundaries; that the petitioners should have used the mechanism under Article 119 to petition Parliament for their grievances; that they therefore did not exhaust the available administrative and legislature remedies before seeking judicial intervention. Council cited the case of Speaker of Senate & another -V- AG (2018) eKLR where the said doctrine was affirmed. 14.Counsel also urged that this same issue was addressed in Okoiti -V- Parliament of Kenya and 2 others; County Government of Taita Taveta & 3 others and that the court made orders for demarcation of the fourty seven (47) Counties in the said case. 15.Counsel urged the court to dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction and failure to comply with Article 119 of the Constitution. 16.Mr. Ekuru Aukot filed written submissions dated 24/1/2025 in support of their preliminary objection dated 13/6/2024 Counsel identified two issues namely;(i).Whether the petition offends Article 188 (1) of the Constitution;ii.Whether the court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition. 17.Counsel submitted that the petition seeks demarcation and delimitation of County boundaries in its prayers; that Article 188 of the Constitution provides for delimitation and demarcation of County Boundaries and that process is done by a Commission set up by Parliament and passed by the National Assembly and the Senate; that the court would be usurping the Constitutional mandate of an Independent Commission or Parliament by entertaining this petition; that demarcation, surveying and marking of boundaries is a technical and legislative function which is not within the jurisdiction of this court. Further that under Article 88 (4) of the Constitution IEBC is given power to delimit constituencies, wards, review their names and boundaries, and resolve electoral boundary disputes; that Article 67 (2) of the Constitution vests in the National Land Commission with the responsibility of conducting research on historical land injustices and recommend appropriate redress; that the High Court can only intervene where the bodies charged with dispute resolution act unlawfully and that is why under Article 89 (10), a person aggrieved by the decision of the IEBC may seek review in the High Court. 17.Counsel urged that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the petition and relied on the decisions of Owners of Motor Vessel Lilian ‘S’ supra and in Re. the matter of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission (2011) eKLR where the courts held that jurisdiction is everything and if the court lacks jurisdiction, it must down its tools. 18.Counsel also submitted that where there are Constitutional processes provided in the Constitution, a dispute resolution which must be followed; that the petitioners have not complied with Article 119 of the Constitution which empowers citizens to petition Parliament to consider any matter within its authority, including erecting or amending any law. Counsel relied on the case of Speaker of National Assembly -V- James Njenga Karume (1992) eKLR where the court held that where there is a clear Constitutional or Statutory procedure for dispute resolution, that procedure must be strictly followed before a party can invoke the jurisdiction of the court. The same view was held in Harrikinson -V- AG Trinidad and Tobago (1980) AC 265. Reliance was also made on RE. the Matter of the Speaker of the Senate and Another (2013) eKLR which cautions against Judicial Overreach, see also International Centre for policy and conflict and 5 others -V- the AG and others (2013) eKLR. 19.Counsel urged the court to uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss the Petition. 20.Ms. Jeruto highlighted the submissions dated 4/3/2025 filed by Brian Otieno Advocates, the 4th Interested Party. The 4th Interested Party associated themselves with the submissions of Ms. Odeyo and Mr. Ekuru. Counsel identified the two issues as the other two Counsel.1.On whether this court has jurisdiction to determine the petition; 21.Counsel emphasized that the Petition seeks demarcation of boundaries but that that mandate to do so rests with the IEBC which is established under Article 88 of the Constitution; that Article 89 of the Constitution provides that IEBC is responsible for delimitation of electoral units while Article 188 of the Constitution provides the procedure for alteration of boundaries; 22.Counsel submitted that it is the IEBC established under Article 88 of the Constitution that is mandated to demarcate County boundaries; that the IEBC is governed by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) Act and under section 4 (c) of the said Act, it is an independent body that is not subject to the control of any other. To buttress their submission, she relied on the decision of NRB Constitutional Petition 511/2015 County Government of Isiolo Supra; NRB Constitutional Petition 104/ 2013 Samson Owimba Ojanyo -V- & IEBC and another and ELC Kisii Case No. 1117/2016 Laban Mongare Bitange -V- Julius Mokaya Ongera & 2 others.2.The second issue is whether the petition offends the Doctrine of exhaustion. 23.Counsel argued that where the Constitution or statute provides for a dispute resolution mechanism, the same should be invoked and exhausted before the party seeks redress in court 24.Counsel relied on several decisions thus;-1.CA 84/2010 Republic -V- National Environment Management Authority (2011) eKLR;2.MSA Constitutional Petition 159/2018 and 201/2019 William Odhiambo Ramogi & 3 others -V- Ali & 4 others;3.Muslims for Human Rights & 2 others and Lastly;4.Supreme Court Petition 3/2016 Mumba and 2 others (sued on their own behalf and on behalf of Predecessors and Successors in title in their capacities as Registered Trustees of Kenya Ports Authority Pensions Scheme) -V- Munyao & 148 others (suing on their own behalf and on behalf of the plaintiffs and other members/ Beneficiaries of the Kenya Ports Authority Pensions Scheme (Petition 3/2016) (2019) KESC 83 KLR. 25.In conclusion Counsel submitted that the petitioners should have raised the issue with the IEBC first. Counsel urged the court to uphold the Preliminary objection and dismiss the petition. 26.Ms. Mong’ina relied on the submissions filed by the 7th Interested Party dated 20/2/2025 in support of the Preliminary Objections. It was submitted that the remedy sought in the petition seeks alteration/demarcation of boundaries; that Article 188 of the Constitution provides for the process of alteration of County boundaries which is outside this court’s jurisdiction. He relied on decisions that have dealt with the same issue, Laban Mongare Bitange (Supra) 27.Counsel also submitted that the County Boundaries Bill (Senate Bill No. 6 of 2023) was passed on 25/4/2024 to give effect to Article 188 as was contemplated in Laban Bitange’s case. 28.On whether the petition offended the doctrine of exhaustion; 29.Counsel urged that since demarcation of County boundaries is reserved for the Commission established under Article 188 of the Constitution, the petitioners were duly bound to petition Parliament under Article 119 of the Commission which they did not do thus violating the doctrine of exhaustion. 30.Mr. Ndinyo, Counsel for the petitioners opposed the Preliminary Objections and filed submissions dated 24/2/2025. The Counsel proved four issues, as follows:-1.Whether the objections raised meet the threshold of a valid Preliminary objection;2.Whether the petition offends Article 188(1) of the Constitution;3.Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition;4.Whether the petition is an abuse of the court process. 30.On whether the objection meets the threshold of a preliminary objection: -Counsel relied on the case of Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd -V- West End Distribution Limited (1969) EA 696, and argued that the issues raised in Preliminary Objections are not pure points of the law which are capable of disposing of the petition; that the court is being asked to interrogate facts, inquire into the acts complained of, examine historical injustices and the Constitutional violations and are not proper Preliminary objections. 31.As to whether the petition offends Article 188(1) of the Constitution, 32.Counsel argued that the petition seeks to have the identification, demarcation, and reaffirmation of boundaries as they existed in 1921 and 1942. It does not involve alteration; that marking and identifying the existing boundaries is an administrative function not a legislative one. He relied on the case of Republic -V- National Land Council & 3 others exparte United States International University (USIU) (2020) eKLR where the court held that administrative functions related to land management do not amount to boundary alterations within the meaning of Article 188. 33.On whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the matter,Counsel submitted that there are allegations of violations of rights but not ownership of land and therefore this matter does not fall under the Environment and Land Court (ELC) Jurisdiction but the High Court. He relied on the decision of Harrison Kinyanjui -V- Attorney General & Another ((2012) eKLR where the court held that the High Court retains jurisdiction where Constitutional violations are alleged. 34.Counsel was of the view that the petition is not an abuse of the process of court because it is a public interest matter raising serious Constitutional questions that require judicial intervention. 35.Counsel urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objections and proceed to hear and determine petitions. 36.The court has considered the Preliminary objections, the submissions in support of the Preliminary objections and the submissions of the petitioner in opposition thereof. The issues for consideration are;1.Whether Preliminary objections meet the threshold of a Preliminary objection;2.Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition;3.Whether the petition is premature or it offends the doctrine of exhaustion. Whether the Preliminary Objection meets the threshold of a Preliminary Objection. 37.In the celebrated case of Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturers (supra) the Court of Appeal said ……”a Preliminary Objection is in the nature of what used to be a demurrer. It raises a pure point of law which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact needs to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion” 38.The required threshold of distinguishing between questions of law and fact for purposes of sustaining a Preliminary Objection were discussed in the case of George Oraro -V- Eston Mboja (2005) eKLR where the court held “A Preliminary Objection is …… declared to be a point of law which must not be blurred with factual details liable to be contested and in any event, to be proved through the processes of evidence.Any assertion which claims to be a preliminary objection, and yet it bears factual aspects calling for proof, or seeks to adduce evidence for its authentication, is not, as a matter of legal principle, a true preliminary objection which the court should allow to proceed…..” 39.In this case, the preliminary objection turns on the question of jurisdiction Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Edition Volume 9 page 350 defines jurisdiction as “….. the authority which a court has to decide matters that are litigated before it to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for decision”. 40.In Mumo Matemu -V- Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others (2013) KECA 445 (KLR) the court said “It is trite that the jurisdiction of any court provides the foundation for its exercise of judicial authority. As a general principle, where a court has no jurisdiction, it has no basis for judicial proceedings much less judicial decision or order. The applicable standard remains the statement of the Court of Appeal in the Owners of Motor Vessel “Lillian S” -V- Caltex Oil Kenya Limited (1989) KLR 1 where it was stated: Jurisdiction is everything, without it, a court has no power to make one step. Where a court has no jurisdiction there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence and a court of law downs its tools in respect of the matter before it, the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction,” 41.Again, in Samuel Kamau Supra, the Supreme court said “A Court’s jurisdiction flows from either the Constitution or legislation or both. Thus, a Court of law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the constitution or other written law. It cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred upon it by law. We agree with Counsel for the first and second respondents in his submission that the issue as to whether a Court of Law has jurisdiction to entertain a matter before it, is not one of mere procedural technicality; it goes to the very heart of the matter, for without jurisdiction, the court cannot entertain any proceedings.” 42.The Supreme court restated the above position in Macharia & Another Supra. A position taken earlier in the celebrated case of Owners of the Motor Vessel Lillian ‘S’ Supra where the court said that, the court cannot take any other step in a matter if it lacks jurisdiction and must down its tools. In this case, the issue raised in the Preliminary objections being jurisdiction, the court must consider it first. The court only needs to look at the Constitution and the relevant statutes to determine whether or not it has the authority to handle this matter. Whether this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition; 43.The single prayer sought in the Amended Petition is “An order compelling the Director of Survey of Kenya, the 2nd Respondent by way of mandamus proceeding to demarcate and clearly mark on the ground as shown on the map of Kenya prepared between 1921 and 1943 the boundaries of the 5th to 9th respondents.” 44.The Respondents and Interested parties contend that the petition offends Article 188 of the constitution.Article 188 of the Constitution provides as follows:188.(1)The boundaries of a county may be altered only by a resolution—(a)recommended by an independent commission set up for that purpose by Parliament; and(b)passed by—(i)the National Assembly, with the support of at least two thirds of all of the members of the Assembly; and(ii)the Senate, with the support of at least two-thirds of all of the county delegations.(2)The boundaries of a county may be altered to take into account—(a)population density and demographic trends;(b)physical and human infrastructure;(c)historical and cultural ties;(d)the cost of administration;(e)the views of the communities affected;(f)the objects of devolution of government; and(g)geographical features. 45.The above provision refers to alteration of boundaries which Mr. Ndinyo Counsel for Petitioner submitted is not what they seek. The term demarcation is also used in the petition. Demarcation is the act of setting and marking limits of boundaries. Alteration is the act or process or result of making a change to somebody’s form, appearance or character. If the boundaries have to be marked to reflect the status in 1921 to 1942 it means that changes will be made to the said boundaries changing the form from current status to that of 1921 to 1942. Whatever term is used whether alteration or demarcation, the same seeks to make changes or realignment to the boundaries of the affected counties. Clearly, a reading of Article 188 of the Constitution totally ousts the interference in matters alteration/demarcation of boundaries by the Judiciary and defines the roles of Parliament and the Senate under the said Article. 46.In addition, it was submitted that the County Boundaries Bill (Senate Bill) of 2023 was passed by Senate on 25/4/2024 and the same gives effect to Article 188 by establishing a County Boundaries Commission, which has the mandate of dispute resolution; that the same is undergoing the legislative process in the National Assembly. 47.In further recognition of the doctrine of Separation of Powers, the Constitution vests specific powers in other independent bodies to deal with specific functions. Article 88 of the Constitution creates the Independent Electoral Boundaries Commission (IEBC) which carries out various functions including demarcation of Constituencies and wards in accordance with the Constitution. Articles 88 (4) specifically provides for the IEBC being responsible for delimitation of Constituencies and wards. Article 89 (1) provides that the High Court may review decisions of the IEBC on application. For County boundaries to be demarcated, the boundaries of constituencies and wards have to be ascertained as wards make a constituency while several constituencies make a county. 48.In the case of Speaker of Senate & Another -V- Attorney General & 6 others (2008) eKLR the court emphasized that the judiciary’s role is to interpret the law and ensure that constitutional processes are followed but not directly intervene in the issue of boundary dispute. 49.Again, in County Government Act 2012, the responsibility of resolving boundary disputes is placed on IEBC. 50.In the case of Laban Mongare Bitange Supra the court dealing with a similar issue said “In the present matter, the court is persuaded that the dispute does infact touch on determination of and/or alteration of the boundary between the two counties Nyamira and Bomet at the point of the dispute. The determination of the dispute may result in the realignment of the boundary between the two counties which may not only affect the disputants before the court. The court in terms of Article 188 of the Constitution lacks any jurisdiction to deal with the matter. One only hopes Parliament will move with haste to enact the County Boundaries Act now pending in Parliament as the County Boundaries Bill 2017 to enable disputes such as the present one to be handled through the mechanism to be established under such Act." 51.In Kenya National Commission on Human Rights -V- AG supra – the court again held that boundary review process should be carried out in accordance with the Constitutional procedures. 52.At paragraphs 34 and 35 of the Amended Petition, the petitioner’s complaint is that there have been numerous conflicts between the residents of the concerned counties because of unclear boundaries. These paragraphs read together with the only prayer in the Petition, it is clear that boundary disputes exist and the petitioners are trying to use the court to settle them through the order sought. 53.Having considered all the above Constitutional provisions and case laws, it is clear that this court lacks jurisdiction to intervene in demarcation all alteration of County Boundaries. Whether the petition is premature and offends doctrine of exhaustion. 54.Black’s Law Dictionary 10th Edition defines the doctrine of exhaustion as follows:- “Exhaustion of Remedies: The doctrine that, if an administrative remedy is provided for by statute, a claimant must seek relief first from the administrative body before judicial relief is available. The Doctrine is to maintain comity between the courts and Administrative agencies and to ensure that courts will not be burdened by cases in which judicial relief is unnecessary” 55.This doctrine was applied in the case of Speaker of the National Assembly -V- James Njenga Karume (1992) eKLR. 56.In Geoffrey Muthinja Kabiru & 2 others -V- Samuel Muguna Henry Supra the court said “It is imperative that where a dispute resolution mechanism exists outside courts, the same be exhausted before the jurisdiction of the courts is invoked. Courts ought to be fora of last resort and not the first port of call the moment a storm brews…… The exhaustion doctrine is a sound one and serves the purpose of ensuring that there is a postponement of judicial consideration of matters to ensure that a party is first of all diligent in the protection of his own interest within the mechanisms in place for resolution outside the court……. This accords the Article 159 of the Constitution which commands courts to encourage alternative means of dispute resolution”. 57.The Supreme Court of Kenya dealt with this issue in Constitutional Petition 159 /2018 and 201/2019 William Odhiambo Ramogi (Supra).See also Supreme Court Petition 3/2016 Mumbe Supra and Isiolo County Assembly Supra.Article 119of the Constitution provides as follows:- “119(1)Every person has the right to petition Parliament to consider any matter within its authority, including the enactment, amendment, or repeal of any legislation.2).Parliament shall as soon as practicable, consider any function prescribed to it under this Article and may either reject or accept it in whole or in part” 58.Before approaching the court, the petitioners who seem to have grievances with the current boundaries of West Pokot have the right conferred by the Constitution to approach Parliament for redress. They can only approach this court after exhausting the said procedure and if the bodies set up under the Constitution have acted unlawfully. As observed earlier, this doctrine is to ensure separation of powers which entrusts each arm of Government and with certain functions: and any other arm should not usurp or interfere. Having failed to follow the due process provided in the Constitution for seeking redress for their grievances, this petition is premature. The petitioners had not exhausted the procedure for redress set out in the Constitution of Kenya, and therefore the petition offends the doctrine of exhaustion. 59.As held in Owners of Motor Vessel Lilian ‘S’ supra’ that “jurisdiction is everything, without it, a court has no power to make one more step. A court of law downs tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that its without jurisdiction.” 60.Having found that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine this petition and that the petition offends the doctrine of exhaustion, this court hereby downs it tools. 61.The Preliminary objections are upheld. The petition is hereby dismissed with each party bearing their own costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KAPENGURIA THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026HON. R.P.V. WENDOH.JUDGERuling read in the presence of:-Ms. Onyango holding brief for Mr. Macharia for 7th Interested party.Ms Akello holding brief for Otieno for 4th Interested partyMr. Ekuru Aukot and Roseline for 5th Interested party.Mr. Ndinyo for Petitioners.Juma/Hellen- Court Assistants.