[2025] KEELC 808 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants had been allotted plots at Geta Bush market and had established a legitimate expectation to continue occupying and conducting business there, having paid rates and business permits for decades. The respondent's repossession of the plots, subsequent allocation to other persons, and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELC 808 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stephen Njuguna Mwai; Applicant: Peter Waititu Gatoto; Applicant: Paul Gatoto Kabuthia; Applicant: Andrew Gitau Kamau; Applicant: Joseph Mathege Muthungu; Applicant: Kariri Watoro Gikonyo; Applicant: John Waweru Wainaina; Applicant: Peter Kimani Njuguna; Applicant: Francis Ndau; Applicant: Joseph Kamau; Applicant: Geofrey Githinji; Applicant: Serah Muthoni Kamau; Applicant: Fredrick Karanja; Applicant: Joseph Kariuki; Applicant: Reuben Muigai; Applicant: Hannah Nyakeru; Applicant: Kimani Njuguna; Applicant: Florence Gachihi; Applicant: David Karanja; Applicant: Raphael Ndung’u; Applicant: Jacob Wang’ombe; Applicant: Joseph K Mutonya; Applicant: Philip Waruinge; Applicant: Hilum Mwangi; Applicant: Hannah Muthoni; Applicant: Joseph Mathenge; Applicant: Eliud Ndiritu; Applicant: James Kamau; Applicant: Esther W. Gachihi; Applicant: S Njuguna; Applicant: Teresiah Wacunga; Applicant: Simon Ndungo; Applicant: Johana Kariuki; Applicant: David Ndiritu; Applicant: Tabitha Wambui; Applicant: Hannah Wanja Marimbi; Applicant: Francis Ndirangu; Applicant: James Muthiga; Applicant: Simon Njuguna; Applicant: Wangari Kamucibi; Applicant: Geoffrey Thiong’o Mwangi; Applicant: Ceciliah Nyambura; Applicant: Elizabeth Wangui; Applicant: Civilian Kimani; Applicant: Joyce Wangari; Applicant: Wanjiru Wang’ombe; Applicant: Peter Ng’ang’a; Applicant: Samuel Maina; Applicant: Debra Nduta; Applicant: Milka Wairimu; Respondent: County Government of Nyandarua
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nyandarua
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E003 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Orders of certiorari, mandamus, and declaration granted in favour of the applicants. Costs awarded to applicants.
- Judges
- JM Kamau
- Legal Topics
- Allocation of Public Land, Legitimate Expectation, Judicial Review Remedies, Public Procurement, Procedural Fairness
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Stephen Njuguna Mwai
Applicant
Peter Waititu Gatoto
Applicant
Paul Gatoto Kabuthia
Applicant
Andrew Gitau Kamau
Applicant
Joseph Mathege Muthungu
Applicant
Kariri Watoro Gikonyo
Applicant
John Waweru Wainaina
Applicant
Peter Kimani Njuguna
Applicant
Francis Ndau
Applicant
Joseph Kamau
Applicant
Geofrey Githinji
Applicant
Serah Muthoni Kamau
Applicant
Fredrick Karanja
Applicant
Joseph Kariuki
Applicant
Reuben Muigai
Applicant
Hannah Nyakeru
Applicant
Kimani Njuguna
Applicant
Florence Gachihi
Applicant
David Karanja
Applicant
Raphael Ndung’u
Applicant
Jacob Wang’ombe
Applicant
Joseph K Mutonya
Applicant
Philip Waruinge
Applicant
Hilum Mwangi
Applicant
Hannah Muthoni
Applicant
Joseph Mathenge
Applicant
Eliud Ndiritu
Applicant
James Kamau
Applicant
Esther W. Gachihi
Applicant
S Njuguna
Applicant
Teresiah Wacunga
Applicant
Simon Ndungo
Applicant
Johana Kariuki
Applicant
David Ndiritu
Applicant
Tabitha Wambui
Applicant
Hannah Wanja Marimbi
Applicant
Francis Ndirangu
Applicant
James Muthiga
Applicant
Simon Njuguna
Applicant
Wangari Kamucibi
Applicant
Geoffrey Thiong’o Mwangi
Applicant
Ceciliah Nyambura
Applicant
Elizabeth Wangui
Applicant
Civilian Kimani
Applicant
Joyce Wangari
Applicant
Wanjiru Wang’ombe
Applicant
Peter Ng’ang’a
Applicant
Samuel Maina
Applicant
Debra Nduta
Applicant
Milka Wairimu
Applicant
County Government of Nyandarua
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the decision by the respondent to renege on the temporary plots at Geta Bush market awarded to the applicants was unlawful.
- 2 Whether the applicants were entitled to orders of certiorari and mandamus to quash the respondent's decision and compel recognition as bona fide owners.
- 3 Whether the respondent's actions violated the applicants' legitimate expectations and procedural fairness.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants had been allotted plots at Geta Bush market and had established a legitimate expectation to continue occupying and conducting business there, having paid rates and business permits for decades. The respondent's repossession of the plots, subsequent allocation to other persons, and failure to provide a development plan or evidence of a fair relocation process amounted to arbitrary, unreasonable, and unlawful administrative action. The court held that the applicants' rights and legitimate expectations were violated, and the respondent's actions were discriminatory and actuated by bad faith. Consequently, the court granted the orders of certiorari to quash...
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Orders of certiorari, mandamus, and declaration granted in favour of the applicants. Costs awarded to applicants.
Orders
- An order of certiorari is issued quashing the respondent's decision to renege on the temporary plots at Geta Bush market awarded to the applicants.
- An order of mandamus is issued compelling the respondent to declare the applicants as bona fide owners of plots within Geta Bush market.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
123 paragraphs
Mwai & 49 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 808 (KLR) (20 February 2025) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 808 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nyandarua
Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E003 of 2024
JM Kamau, J
February 20, 2025
(FORMERLY NAIVASHA ELC JR. E003 OF 2021) IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA ARTICLE 5, 10, 12, 19, 20, 21, 27 & 176 AND IN THE MATTER OF ORDER 53 RULES 1 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 8 & 9 OF THE LAW REFORM ACT CAP 26 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS FOR AN ORDER OR CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS AND IN THE MATTER OF THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT ACT SECTION 3(a), (b) & (i), 5(1) & (2), 34, 36, 37 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE COUNTY GOVERNMENTS PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS SECTION 3, 7 & 10 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AND ASSET DISPOSAL ACT NO.33 OF 2015 SECTION 33, 34, 44, 46, 47, 51, 68, 65, 66, 69, 73, 77, 78 & 86 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDERS
In the matter of
Stephen Njuguna Mwai
1st Applicant
Peter Waititu Gatoto
2nd Applicant
Paul Gatoto Kabuthia
3rd Applicant
Andrew Gitau Kamau
4th Applicant
Joseph Mathege Muthungu
5th Applicant
Kariri Watoro Gikonyo
6th Applicant
John Waweru Wainaina
7th Applicant
Peter Kimani Njuguna
8th Applicant
Francis Ndau
9th Applicant
Joseph Kamau
10th Applicant
Geofrey Githinji
11th Applicant
Serah Muthoni Kamau
12th Applicant
Fredrick Karanja
13th Applicant
Joseph Kariuki
14th Applicant
Reuben Muigai
15th Applicant
Hannah Nyakeru
16th Applicant
Kimani Njuguna
17th Applicant
Florence Gachihi
18th Applicant
David Karanja
19th Applicant
Raphael Ndung’u
20th Applicant
Jacob Wang’ombe
21st Applicant
Joseph K Mutonya
22nd Applicant
Philip Waruinge
23rd Applicant
Hilum Mwangi
24th Applicant
Hannah Muthoni
25th Applicant
Joseph Mathenge
26th Applicant
Eliud Ndiritu
27th Applicant
James Kamau
28th Applicant
Esther W. Gachihi
29th Applicant
S Njuguna
30th Applicant
Teresiah Wacunga
31st Applicant
Simon Ndungo
32nd Applicant
Johana Kariuki
33rd Applicant
David Ndiritu
34th Applicant
Tabitha Wambui
35th Applicant
Hannah Wanja Marimbi
36th Applicant
Francis Ndirangu
37th Applicant
James Muthiga
38th Applicant
Simon Njuguna
39th Applicant
Wangari Kamucibi
40th Applicant
Geoffrey Thiong’o Mwangi
41st Applicant
Ceciliah Nyambura
42nd Applicant
Elizabeth Wangui
43rd Applicant
Civilian Kimani
44th Applicant
Joyce Wangari
45th Applicant
Wanjiru Wang’ombe
46th Applicant
Peter Ng’ang’a
47th Applicant
Samuel Maina
48th Applicant
Debra Nduta
49th Applicant
Milka Wairimu
50th Applicant
Judgment
1. Pursuant to leave granted a Notice of Motion dated 6/5/2021 was filed on 7/5/2021 seeking the following prayers: 1. That an Order of certiorari be made to remove into this Honourable court for the purpose of it being quashed the decision by the 1st Respondent to renege on the temporary Plots at Geta Bush market awarded to the Ex Parte Applicants.
2. That an Order of mandamus to compel the Respondents to declare residents as bona fide owners of plots within Geta Bush market.
3. That a declaration that the decision by the Respondent to award new allottees to the detriment of the Applicants is illegal, egregious and unlawful hence void and of no effect.
4. An Order for costs.
2. The Motion was brought under Order 53 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and all enabling provisions of the law and the same was supported by the Grounds set out in the statutory statement and the Supporting Affidavit of Stephen Njuguna Mwai and Dominick Opiyo Okeyo respectively. In the said Verifying Affidavit, the Applicants deponed that they were allotted Plots at Geta Bush where they have conducted business for over 40 years and have been paying the requisite land rates and “business rates”. They also claimed that there was a fire that brought down the structures in the market on 9/3/2021 but that the following day the Governor, accompanied by the Cabinet Secretary, Trade and Industrialization visited the market area and promised to reinstate the Applicants back but never did so. The market was given to other persons which according to the Ex Parte Applicants, was contrary to the Rules of National Justice. The market space was awarded to people who never participated in the bidding process and that the Respondent’s actions were unlawful, arbitrary, malicious, capricious, unreasonable, discriminatory, actuated by bad faith and based on extraneous considerations against the Applicants’ lawful, legitimate and rightful expectations. Mr. Mwai concludes his Affidavit by saying that the Respondent introduced extravagant fees to be paid by the Private Hospital without notifying the relevant stakeholders. The Ex Parte Applicants attached to this Motion the following documents: - 1. An undated authority by the Ex Parte Applicants to Stephen Njuguna Mwai allowing him to swear the supporting and verifying Affidavits.
2. Licenses from the County Council of Nyandarua.
3. Allotment Letters.
4. Receipts for rate payment.
5. Deed Plans for the plots.
3. On their part, the Respondents through the 1st Respondents’ Chief Officer Industrialization and Trade, Mr. Samson Mweru, filed a Replaying Affidavit sworn on the 10/12/2021. The same was filed in court on 14/12/2021. In the said Affidavit, he deponed that Geta Bush Market was built on land belonging to the County Government of Nyandarua which subdivided part of the land into several plots and issued10 temporary occupation licenses which were allocated and the respective allottees took possession, put up temporary wooden structures and they have been paying the requisite County Rates. Then the County Government constructed a permanent market shed in the remaining parcel of the land. Then on 19/3/2021, the 1st Respondent mapped out some space for the construction of permanent stalls/kiosks. But that later in the evening, a fire gutted the wooden structures thereon in spite of the spirited efforts by the County Government’s engines to put off the same.
4. The County Government later repossessed the burnt plots because they were on a road reserve and the respective allottees were to be relocated and the displaced traders were issued with new plots through balloting. The 1st Respondent has identified space for the said allottees and is in the process of developing a building plan to be adhered to in order to construct fire resistant structures. This was done after bidding and procurement process was duly followed in accordance with the law. To conclude, the Chief Officer depones that this suit is ill-advised, premature and founded on baseless fear as the allottees will “soon” be allocated new spaces and the suit is merely speculative and there is no violation of the Ex Parte Applicants’ rights or fundamental freedoms.
5. Having heard both parties through their respective Affidavits in court, the Respondents do not deny that the Ex Parte Applicants had been allotted plots but they admit that they gave them the plots on what was earmarked for a road reserve which they later repossessed and identified another place for putting up stalls for them. The County Government, however, did not provide to this court a map showing the new development and their contention would just be a way of getting a reprieve from court. They conclude that the Ex Parte Applicants rushed to court before the exercise of allocating them the plots was concluded. I am surprised at the coincidence of the fire that gutted the Applicants’ premises and the discovery of the Respondents that the place was meant for a road reserve and that they were to be relocated. The Applicants have a legitimate expectation to live and earn a living at a place given to them and for which they have been paying rates and business permits. The Respondents had an opportunity to show to the court the plan they have for the Geta Bush Market which they failed to do. The Applicants say that what they used to occupy has now been given to other occupants. This after the Applicant had, of course, established goodwill for the markets. I agree with the Applicants that the Respondent’s actions were unlawful, arbitrary, malicious, capricious, unreasonable, discriminatory, actuated by bad faith and based on extraneous considerations against the Applicants’ lawful, legitimate and rightful expectations. This cannot be allowed to take place in a democratic society and I Order that the Applicants are entitled to prayers 1, 2 and 3 in their Motion dated 6/5/2021 which orders are hereby allowed. They will also have the costs of this suit.It is so Ordered.
JUDGMENT DATED AND SIGNED AT NYANDARUA THIS 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025. In the presence of:N/A for the ApplicantsMs. Njeri Wanjiru for the RespondentsC/A – Eric………………………….MUGO KAMAUJUDGE