https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4495

Mbugua & 14 others v County Government of Kiambu (Environment and Land Petition E025 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4495 (KLR) (15 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 4495 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Thika Environment and Land Petition E025 of 2025 JA Mogeni, J July 15, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF BREACH, VIOLATION AND/OR THE INFRINGEMENT OF THE PETITIONERS’ FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLES 2 (1), 3(1), 10(1) (2), (A), (B), AND (C) 19(2) 20(2), 22. 23, 24, 27 (1), 28, 36, 40, 162 (2) (B), 258, 258 AND 259 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010 AND SECTIONS 75 OF THE OLD KENYAN CONSTITUTION AND IN THE MATTER OF PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 4 (1), (2)., AND 4 (4) OF THE FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE OF ACTION ACT CHAPTER 7 REVISED EDITION, 2022 Between Stephen Kiarie Mbugua 1st Petitioner Patrick Nyoro Njuguna 2nd Petitioner Salome Nyambura Mucbomba 3rd Petitioner Mary Wambui Ndura 4th Petitioner John Ng’iithe Gitau 5th Petitioner Henry Kuria Ng’ang’a 6th Petitioner Grace Wabu Mburu 7th Petitioner Samuel Ngigi Kamau 8th Petitioner Esther Njeri Waweru 9th Petitioner Rose Wangui Ngure 10th Petitioner Anastacia Wangui Kihara 11th Petitioner John Kimani Muigai 12th Petitioner Mary Wambui Ruiru 13th Petitioner David Ng’anga 14th Petitioner David Koigu Njoroge 15th Petitioner and County Government of Kiambu Respondent Judgment 1.Through a Petition initially filed on 06/11/2025, the Petitioners request this Honourable Court to consider granting them the following Orders:1.A declaration that the Respondent’s intended demolition of the Petitioners' properties to wit plot numbers 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 50 located in Kagwe Town, Lari Sub-County is unconstitutional, unlawful, null, and void.2.A permanent injunction restraining the Respondent, its agents, or servants from demolishing, evicting, or in any way interfering with the Petitioners' possession and occupation their properties to wit plot numbers 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 & 50 in Kagwe Town.3.A declaration that the Respondent has violated the Petitioners' constitutional rights under Articles 40, 47, and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya.4.An order for compensation and general damages for the loss, distress, and inconvenience occasioned by the Respondent’s unlawful actions and threats.5.Any other relief that this Honorable Court may deem fit and just to grant.6.Costs of this Petition be awarded to the Petitioners. 2.The Petitioners’ case was outlined in the Petition and in the Supporting Affidavit of Stephen Kiarie Mbugua, sworn on even date. The Deponent, Stephen Kiarie Mbugua, a resident of Githunguri, deposes the Supporting Affidavit where he describes himself as the 1st Petitioner with the express authority of his co-Petitioners, who are law-abiding property owners and developers within Kagwe Town, Lari Sub-County. The Deponent attests that the Petitioners possess valid ownership claims over the suit properties via allotment letters, leases, or long-term occupation rights, and have consistently complied with the Respondent’s land use regulations and statutory obligations, including the timeous payment of land rates. The Deponent’s authority to act on behalf of the affected property owners is annexed and marked "SKM1", while the relevant ownership documentation and financial compliance records are annexed as bundles marked "SKM2" and "SKM3" respectively. 3.The substratum of the dispute arose on or about the 13/10/2025, when the Lari Sub-County Municipal Board Manager, Geoffrey Muya, issued a verbal threat of imminent demolition targeting plot numbers 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 50 under what the Petitioners term as the pretext that they encroach on a planned parking area. The Deponent refutes this claim as baseless by referencing the official cadastral map for the subject area, which according to the Petitioners explicitly delineates the disputed parcels as an approved development zone divided into specific plots. This official cadastral map for the subject area is annexed and marked "SKM4". 4.Thus, the main grievance of the Petition stems from what they describe as imminent threats made by the Respondent's officers and agents to demolish structures on nine specific parcels of land being plots 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 50. The Petitioners state that these threats are being carried out without the issuance of any valid, lawful legal notices, and without providing opportunities for public participation or a fair hearing. 5.The Petitioners argue that these actions are arbitrary, unreasonable, and completely bypass administrative due process. They assert that the County Government is in direct violation of basic principles of good governance, transparency, and accountability. Legally, the Petition frames these actions as active and imminent infringements on fundamental constitutional protections, specifically targeting the right to property, the right to fair administrative action, and the right to a fair hearing. To protect their investments and retain peaceful possession of their land, the Petitioners have approached the Court for restraining orders, damages, and a declaration protecting their rights. 6.Through their Advocates on record, the Petitioners dispatched a demand letter dated 15/10/2025, annexed and marked "SKM5", seeking information regarding the intended demolition, which was followed by a comprehensive appeal for intervention and a request for an administrative meeting directed to the Governor of Kiambu County dated 21/10/2025, annexed and marked "SKM6". The Deponent avers that these statutory grievances were blatantly ignored by the Respondent, whose agents proceeded under the cover of darkness on 4/11/2025, to illicitly mark the subject premises with the acronym "CGK", denoting the County Government of Kiambu, as captured in assorted photographs annexed and marked "SKM7". The Deponent concludes that the Respondent's advanced plans to execute the demolitions without formal statutory notice, a fair hearing, or administrative review are overtly illegal and oppressive, and unless this Honourable Court urgently intervenes, the Petitioners will suffer severe hardship and irreparable loss of their livelihoods, rendering it highly just and equitable for the reliefs sought to be granted. 7.Despite being served with the Petition the Respondent chose not to file any response. Notably the Petition is unopposed. The circumstances notwithstanding, the Court is still bound to evaluate the merits of the Petitioners’ evidence. This Court will not automatically grant the Petition; the Petitioners must still prove their claims on a balance of probabilities. This principle was extensively discussed by the High Court of Kenya in the case Mwirigi v Judicial Service Commission & 2 Others (Constitutional Petition E059 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 4668 (KLR):“The circumstances notwithstanding, the Court is still bound to evaluate the merits of the Petitioners’ evidence. This Court will not automatically grant the Petition; the Petitioners must still prove their claims on a balance of probabilities." Petitioner’s Written Submissions’ 8.The Petitioners’ written submissions, filed pursuant to the Court directions of 9/12/2025 in respect of this Petition, rest primarily on the issue submitted by the Petitioners as being severe violation of their constitutional right to property and the right to a fair hearing. The Petitioners aver that the Respondent’s intended demolition of their assorted properties within Kagwe Town constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of property without due process, directly contravening Articles 40, 47, 48, 50, 22, 27, and 29 of the Constitution of Kenya. 9.To fortify this position, the Petitioners rely on the precedent set by Justice A.O. Ombwayo in Nyongesa v County Government of Nakuru & Another [2024] KEELC 5801 (KLR), which held that demolitions executed while rectifications are ongoing are arbitrary and plagued by procedural impropriety. Furthermore, they invoke the landmark decisions of Mitubell Welfare Society v Kenya Airport Authority (Supreme Court Petition No. 3 of 2018) and Satrose Ayuma & 11 Others v Registered Trustees of Kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme & Others (Petition 65 of 2010) to emphasize that evictions must strictly comply with the mandatory statutory conditions and legal principles encapsulated under Section 152(a) to (g) of the Land Act, failure to which the state actions stand tainted as constitutional violations. 10.On the second limb of the submissions, the Petitioners impugn the impending demolitions for a manifest lack of procedural fairness and a blatant disregard for the rules of natural justice. Through the Supporting Affidavit of Stephen Kiarie Mbugua, it is deponed that the Lari Sub-County Municipal Board Manager, Geoffrey Muya, merely issued a casual verbal notice on 13/10/2025 asserting that Plot Numbers 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 50 were due for demolition to pave the way for a planned parking area. 11.Further that despite the Petitioners moving with celerity to dispatch two formal demand letters dated 15/10/2025 and 21/10/2025 to the Respondent’s Department of Land, Housing & Planning and the Governor of Kiambu County respectively, the Respondent failed to respond and instead proceeded to culpably earmark the subject properties by imprinting the letters "CGK". This failure to issue a mandatory statutory notice or convene a show-cause hearing flies in the face of fair administrative action, a position they submit is buttressed by the holding of Justice C.K. Nzili in Mwaura v County Government of Trans Nzoia (Environment & Land Case 2 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 4953 (KLR), where the Court condemned the habit of local authorities taking the law into their own hands to effect demolitions without obtaining a Court order or following due process. 12.Ultimately, the Petitioners argue that the Respondent’s high-handed actions constitute a material breach of their legitimate expectation over the suit properties. The Petitioners submit that they have placed before the Court a cadastral map demarcating the disputed area as a lawful commercial development zone, alongside legitimate allotment letters, leases, clearance certificates, and payment receipts originally acquired from the defunct County Council of Kiambu, the statutory precursor to the current Respondent. Given that the root of their titles has never been contested or subjected to any non-suit challenges in Court, the Petitioners aver that they have always maintained a well-founded and legitimate expectation that their long-term occupancy and ownership are lawful. Anchoring this argument on the decision in Rutongot Farm Ltd v Kenya Forest Service & Others (Supreme Court Petition 2 of 2016) [2018] KESC 27 (KLR), the Petitioners submit that once a proprietary right has been lawfully acquired, it enjoys full constitutional insulation under Article 40, and therefore they humbly pray that the Petition dated 6/11/2025 be allowed with costs. Issues for Determination 13.Having carefully considered the Petition, the Supporting Affidavit together with the annexures thereto, and noting that the Respondent has despite service chosen not to oppose this matter, this Court acknowledges its sacred duty to subject the uncontroverted evidence to strict legal proof. As established in Mwirigi v Judicial Service Commission & 2 Others [supra], a Petition is not granted as a matter of course or by default; the Petitioners must still establish their claims on a balance of probabilities. 14.To determine whether the Petitioners have discharged this standard of proof, the Court filters the dispute into three main issues for determination:i.Whether the Petitioners possess proprietary interests in the suit properties capable of constitutional protection under Article 40 of the Constitution.ii.Whether the Respondent’s intended demolition and continuous threats violate the Petitioners’ rights to fair administrative action and a fair hearing under Articles 47 and 50(1) of the Constitution.iii.Whether the Petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought, including permanent injunctive orders and damages. Analysis and Determination 15.The first sub-issue hinges on whether the Petitioners have established an ownership or possessory interest over plot numbers 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 50 located in Kagwe Town. The Petitioners have presented allotment letters, leases, clearance certificates, and payment receipts issued by the defunct County Council of Kiambu, the statutory predecessor of the Respondent. Black's Law Dictionary defines property as "the right to possess, use, and enjoy a determinate thing," adding that it encompasses "every species of valuable right and interest." Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edition, Volume 38) further underscores that a person in peaceable possession of land has a good title against all the world except the true owner, and such possession generates a legitimate expectation of quiet enjoyment. 16.Where public land has been formally allocated by a local authority and public records like cadastral maps validate its planning purpose, the state cannot retroactively uproot the beneficiary through raw executive fiat. In Willy Kipangat Kiprono & Another v County Government of Bomet & another [2020] eKLR, the Court explored the sanctity of title even when held under allotment letters against state high-handedness. Justice Lawi Olwande observed:“The allocation of the plots having been done by the predecessor of the 1st Respondent, the 1st Respondent cannot turn around and claim that the Petitioners are illegal occupants without following due process. It is a well-settled principle of law that statutory power must be exercised reasonably and within the confines of the law. Property rights lawfully acquired under Article 40 of the Constitution are sacred and cannot be extinguished by executive declarations or administrative edicts at the whims of county officials." 17.The Respondent has not offered any evidence to challenge the authenticity of annexures "SKM2", "SKM3", and "SKM4". On a balance of probabilities, the Petitioners have established a sound proprietary root of title. The state cannot retrospectively extinguish these rights under the pretext of correcting public planning maps without engaging the mechanisms of acquisition or compulsory revocation provided by law. 18.The second issue goes to the root of administrative governance. The Petitioners’ evidence reveals that the Lari Sub-County Municipal Board Manager issued a casual verbal threat of imminent demolition on 13/10/2025. This was followed by the marking of the structures with the acronym "CGK" under the cover of darkness, completely ignoring two formal statutory demand letters from the Petitioners. 19.The requirement for Fair Administrative Action is non-negotiable. Halsbury’s Laws of England (5th Edition, Volume 1) explicitly notes that "the rule that no man is to be condemned unheard (audi alteram partem) is of universal application where an administrative body takes actions that affect the rights or property of individuals." This rule is constitutionalized in the Constitution under Article 47 and operationalized through the Fair Administrative Action Act. In the comparative jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India, which shares deep jurisprudential ground with Kenya on socio-economic and property rights, the Court has consistently struck down administrative actions that bypass notice and hearings. In Olga Tellis & Others v Bombay Municipal Corporation [1985] 3 SCC 545, Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud stated:“The rule of audi alteram partem which injects justice into the law is as much a condition precedent to a valid exercise of administrative power as it is to a judicial power. The compliance with the rules of natural justice is a prime requirement for administrative decisions affecting rights. No matter how pressing the public purpose, whether it be building a highway, a parking zone or a public utility, the law does not permit the state to act like a thief in the night, bypassing the fundamental right of a citizen to be heard, to explain, and to receive a written, reasoned justification for the deprivation of their livelihood." 20.Locally, our Courts have repeatedly affirmed that public participation and the issuance of clear, structured statutory notices are mandatory prerequisites before any demolition can occur. In Republic v Nairobi City County & 2 Others Ex-parte Wahome [2018] eKLR, Justice John Mativo (as he then was) held:“The constitutional right to fair administrative action under Article 47 is intended to insulate the citizen from arbitrary, whimsical, and oppressive use of state power. A statutory body or county government cannot simply arrive at a parcel of land and paint marks of demolition or issue verbal ultimatums. To do so is to replace the rule of law with the rule of the jungle. The law requires a formal, written notice, detailing the specific breaches, providing a clear timeframe for compliance or response, and affording the affected party a forum to state their case. Any administrative action taken in violation of these conditions is a nullity ab initio." 21.The Respondent's conduct in this matter is a textbook example of procedural impropriety. A verbal threat by a municipal manager does not constitute a valid statutory notice. The subsequent clandestine marking of the buildings with "CGK" without replying to the Petitioners' letters reveals an administrative process that completely ignored due process. 22.The Petitioners have asked for declarations of unconstitutionality, a permanent injunction, and compensation by way of general damages. Given that the proprietary rights have been verified and the procedural violations are manifest, the constitutional path requires this Court to issue clean, declarative remedies to vindicate the violated rights. 23.Regarding the prayer for general damages, the Court notes that while no specific valuation report for actual structural damage was submitted, since the demolition was fortunately intercepted by this suit the Petitioners have established that they suffered severe psychological distress, apprehension, and disruption of their quiet enjoyment due to the high-handed threats. Under Article 23(3)(e) of the Constitution, this Court has a broad mandate to grant compensation for the infringement of fundamental freedoms. The arbitrary marking of a citizen's building for demolition without cause or notice is an injury that attracts general damages for constitutional violation. Disposal Orders 24.Ultimately, this Court finds that the Petitioners have fully discharged their burden of proof on a balance of probabilities. The state, through the County Government of Kiambu, must learn that devolution did not create kingdoms exempt from the Bill of Rights. Constitutional processes must be followed to the letter, regardless of how noble an urban development plan may appear to county administrators. 25.Consequent upon the matching findings above, this Court hereby enters Judgment for the Petitioners against the Respondent and issues the following final orders:i.A Declaration is hereby issued that the Respondent’s intended demolition of the Petitioners' properties, to wit plot numbers 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 50 located in Kagwe Town, Lari Sub-County, is unconstitutional, unlawful, null, and void for want of due process, statutory notice, and procedural fairness.ii.A Declaration be and is hereby issued that the Respondent has actively violated the Petitioners' fundamental constitutional rights to property, fair administrative action, and a fair hearing as guaranteed under Articles 40, 47, and 50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya.iii.A Permanent Injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the Respondent, its County Executive Officers, Municipal Board Managers, agents, servants, or any person acting under its authority from demolishing, evicting, or in any manner whatsoever interfering with the Petitioners' peaceable possession, occupation, and quiet enjoyment of the properties known as plot numbers 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 50 in Kagwe Town, Lari Sub-County.iv.An Order is hereby made awarding General Damages to the Petitioners for the constitutional violations, distress, and inconvenience occasioned by the Respondent’s unlawful threats and administrative actions, assessed at a consolidated sum of Kshs. 1,500,000 (Kenya Shillings One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Only), which shall attract interest at Court rates from the date of this Judgment until payment in full.v.The Costs of this Petition are hereby awarded to the Petitioners, to be taxed and paid by the Respondent.Orders Accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT THIKA THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ON THIS 15TH DAY OF JULY 2026.…………………….MOGENI JJUDGEIn the Presence of:Mr. Kiratu Kamunya for the PetitionersRespondent - AbsentMr. Melita - Court Assistant