[2024] KEELC 4814 (KLR)

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2024] KEELC 4814 (KLR)
Parties: Applicant: Charles Omondi Obuya; Applicant: James Ochieng Omwa; Applicant: Peter Oduor Ojwang; Applicant: Matatu Owners Association, Kisumu; Respondent: County Government Of Kisumu; Respondent: City Manager, Kisumu City; Respondent: Chairman Kisumu County Transport And Safety Committee; Respondent: Regional Commissioner, Kisumu County; Respondent: The Attorney General
Court: Environment and Land Court
Court Station: Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction: Kenya
Case Number: Constitutional Petition E001 of 2024
Procedural Posture: Constitutional Petition / Interlocutory Application for Conservatory Orders
Outcome: Interim conservatory orders granted; status quo to be maintained pending hearing of the application.
Judges: SO Okong'o
Legal Topics: Right to Fair Administrative Action, Public Participation, Forced Eviction, Right to Property, Urban Planning, Interim Conservatory Orders
Source Language: en

Constitutional Law Land and Property Administrative Law Right to Fair Administrative Action Public Participation Forced Eviction Right to Property Urban Planning +1 more

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2

Parties

Charles Omondi Obuya

Applicant

James Ochieng Omwa

Applicant

Peter Oduor Ojwang

Applicant

Matatu Owners Association, Kisumu

Applicant

County Government Of Kisumu

Respondent

City Manager, Kisumu City

Respondent

Chairman Kisumu County Transport And Safety Committee

Respondent

Regional Commissioner, Kisumu County

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Interlocutory Application for Conservatory Orders

Legal Issues

1 Whether the planned relocation of the petitioners from Kisumu Town Centre to Mowlem Bus Park without consultation violates constitutional and statutory rights.
2 Whether interim conservatory orders should be granted to maintain the status quo pending hearing and determination of the petition.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the purpose of the application for conservatory orders would be defeated if interim orders were not granted, as the planned relocation could occur before the petitioners had an opportunity to argue their case. The court held that it was just and fair to maintain the status quo and grant interim conservatory orders, thereby preventing the respondents from proceeding with the relocation until the application is heard and determined. The court emphasized the importance of giving the petitioners a fair hearing and preserving their rights pending the full determination of the petition.

Court Disposition

Interim conservatory orders granted; status quo to be maintained pending hearing of the application.

Orders

Respondents to file and serve their response to the application within 7 days from the date of the ruling.
Petitioners to file submissions and supplementary affidavit, if necessary, within 7 days of service of the 1st respondent’s response.

Full Case Text

Judgment text and source record

37 paragraphs

Obuya & 3 others v County Government of Kisumu & 4 others (Constitutional Petition E001 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 4814 (KLR) (20 February 2024) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 4814 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Environment and Land Court at Kisumu

Constitutional Petition E001 of 2024

SO Okong'o, J

February 20, 2024

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 1, 2, 3, 10 (1) & 2, 19, 20 (1), (2), & (4), 21, 22, (1), & (3), 25(c), 27 (1), & (2), 40, 43, 47 (1) & (2), 50 (1), 61 (1), 64 (B), 67, 68, 73 (1) & 75 (1), (2) & (3), 159, 162, 176, 184 & 232 (1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS COURT ACT, 2011 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LAND REGISTRATION ACT 2012 AND IN THE MATTER OF FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ACT NO. 17 OF 2015 AND IN THE MATTER OF URBAN AREAS AND CITIES ACT NO. 13 OF 2012 AND IN THE MATTER OF NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION ACT NO. 5 OF 2012 AND IN THE MATTER OF LEADERSHIP AND INTEGRITY ACT NO. 19 OF 2012 AND IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC OFFICER ETHICS ACT NO. 4 OF 2003 AND IN THE MATTER OF CONSTITUTION OF KENYA (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES, 2013

Between

Charles Omondi Obuya

1st Petitioner

James Ochieng Omwa

2nd Petitioner

Peter Oduor Ojwang

3rd Petitioner

Matatu Owners Association, Kisumu

4th Petitioner

and

County Government Of Kisumu

1st Respondent

City Manager, Kisumu City

2nd Respondent

Chairman Kisumu County Transport And Safety Committee

3rd Respondent

Regional Commissioner, Kisumu County

4th Respondent

The Attorney General

5th Respondent

Ruling

1. The petitioners/applicants brought this petition on 15th February 2024 against the respondents challenging the planned relocation of their activities from Kisumu Town Centre to Mowlem Bus Park. The petitioners have alleged several violations of the Constitution and statute law.

2. Together with the petition, the petitioners filed an application for conservatory orders pending the hearing and determination of the petition. The application for conservatory orders came up for directions on 16th February 2024 when the court certified it as urgent and directed that the same be served forthwith for hearing today. The application was served upon the respondents on 19th February 2024.

3. When the application came up for hearing this morning, the advocates for the 1st, 4th and 5th respondents told the court that they were not ready to argue the application and that they needed time to respond to the same. The advocate for the petitioners told the court that he had no objection to the request by the advocates for the said respondents. He however urged the court to grant interim orders in terms of prayers 2 and 4 of the application for conservatory orders. The advocate for the 1st respondent opposed the application for interim conservatory orders while the advocate for the 4th and 5th respondents had no objection to the same.

4. I have considered the submissions by the advocates for the petitioner and the 1st respondent on the issue. The purpose of an interim order in the circumstances of this case would be to ensure that the substantive orders sought in the application are not defeated.

5. In their application, the petitioners have contended that the respondents are planning to forcefully move them from their usual places of business within Kisumu Town to Mowlem Bus Park without consultation and in breach of several provisions of the law. The advocate for the 1st respondent has not denied the planned relocation. The 1st respondent has contended that the relocation is lawful and that there was public participation on the same. The respondents are yet to file their responses to the application and the petition. The court will have an opportunity to consider the rival contentions and will decide whether or not the planned relocation is lawful and whether the petitioners were consulted.

6. For now, I am persuaded that the purpose of the application before me will be defeated if no interim orders are granted to maintain the status quo. I am of the view that it would only be just and fair that the petitioners are given an opportunity to argue their application before the planned relocation exercise is carried out.

7. For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that a case has been made out for the grant of the interim orders sought. I therefore make the following orders.1. The respondents shall file and serve their response to the application within 7 days from the date hereof.2. The petitioners shall file their submissions together with a supplementary affidavit if necessary within 7 days of service of the 1st respondent’s response.3. The respondents shall file their submissions within 7 days from the date of service of the petitioners’ submissions.4. The matter shall be mentioned on 20th March 2024 for a ruling date.5. Until then, prayers 2 and 4 of the application are granted on a temporary basis.

DELIVERED AND DATED AT KISUMU ON THIS 20THDAY OF FEBRUARY 2024S.OKONG’OJUDGERuling delivered virtually through Microsoft Teams Video Conferencing Platform in the presence of:Mr. Mwamu for the PetitionersMs. Awuor for the 1st RespondentMr. Kajo for the 4th and 5th RespondentsMs. J.Omondi-Court Assistant

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.