[2017] KEELC 1845 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 1845 (KLR)

The court found that the Petitioners were the registered proprietors of the suit land and that the Respondents demolished their homes without a court order or notice, in violation of their constitutional rights. The Respondents did not contest the Petitioners. evidence or provide any justification for their actions....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 1845 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Peter Njogu Mwangi, David Muli, and Assumpta Ngina (suing as officials of Kitanda na Mbusya Association on behalf of 50 members); Respondent: Hon. Attorney General of Kenya; Respondent: Inspector General of Police; Respondent: East African Portland Cement Co. Ltd
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 10 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
Petition allowed in part; declaratory orders granted; claim for damages dismissed; costs awarded to Petitioners against 3rd Respondent.
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Right to Housing, Forced Evictions, Right to Property, Fair Administrative Action, Human Dignity, Children Rights
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Land and Property Right to Housing Forced Evictions Right to Property Fair Administrative Action Human Dignity Children Rights

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Njogu Mwangi, David Muli, and Assumpta Ngina (suing as officials of Kitanda na Mbusya Association on behalf of 50 members)

Applicant

Hon. Attorney General of Kenya

Respondent

Inspector General of Police

Respondent

East African Portland Cement Co. Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the demolition of the Petitioners. homes without notice or court order violated their constitutional rights to housing, property, and dignity.
  2. 2 Whether the Respondents. actions contravened the Petitioners. rights to fair administrative action and access to information.
  3. 3 Whether the Petitioners. members are entitled to compensation for the demolition and trauma suffered.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Petitioners were the registered proprietors of the suit land and that the Respondents demolished their homes without a court order or notice, in violation of their constitutional rights. The Respondents did not contest the Petitioners. evidence or provide any justification for their actions. The court held that the demolition breached the Petitioners. rights to housing, property, human dignity, fair administrative action, and the rights of children and the elderly. However, the court declined to award damages due to lack of evidence on quantum and apportionment, noting that the Petitioners should have provided valuation evidence to support their claim for...

Court Disposition

Petition allowed in part; declaratory orders granted; claim for damages dismissed; costs awarded to Petitioners against 3rd Respondent.

Orders

  • Declarations issued that the demolition of Petitioners. homes without notice or alternative shelter violated their constitutional rights to housing, property, dignity, fair administrative action, and rights of children and elderly.
  • Claim for damages dismissed for lack of evidence.