SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Christopher Ngusu Mulwa & 28 others v County Government of Kitui & 2 others [2017] KEELC 2271 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 2271 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
2271
Citation
[2017] KEELC 2271 (KLR)
Decided
16 June 2017
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLand and Environment DisputePostureAppeal from a decision of the Environment and Land Court
Holding

The court dismissed the petition, finding that the Environment and Land Court does not have jurisdiction to hear constitutional petitions.

Facts

The Petitioners are members of the Kwa Ukungu Community of Kitui County. The suit land, known as Kyangwithya/Misewani/112, was donated to the County Government of Kitui. The 1st Respondent, the County Government of Kitui, initiated a construction project on the suit land without consulting the Petitioners.

Issues

  1. Whether the use of the suit land for the construction project constitutes equitable, efficient, and sustainable use of land.
  2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to be consulted on the land use in the area.
  3. Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to hear the constitutional petition.

Reasoning

The court ruled that the jurisdiction to determine questions on a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of rights or to hear any question respecting the interpretation of the Constitution is vested in the High Court, not the Environment and Land Court.

Outcome

The petition was dismissed.

Authorities cited

Legislation (4)
  • Article 165(3) of the Constitution
  • Article 165(5) of the Constitution
  • Article 162(2) of the Constitution
  • Article 62 of the Constitution
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case