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

Joseph M. Kurui & 4 others v Ministry of Forestry & Wildlife & 3 others [2017] KEELC 3724 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 3724 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
3724
Citation
[2017] KEELC 3724 (KLR)
Decided
25 January 2017
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypePetition for Fundamental Rights ViolationPostureRespondents' appeal from a judgment of the Environment and Land Court of Kenya at EldoretCoramNot explicitly named in the provided text, but implied to be the presiding judges of the Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Eldoret
Holding

The court finds that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate who was a bogus squatter and who was the genuine squatter, but acknowledges that a squatter is a squatter.

Facts

Petitioners claim to be squatters in Kipkunur/Kewabus Forest, excluded from the Government Resettlement of Squatters Programme for Marakwet East District in 2009. They seek to enforce their rights under Article 22 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.

Issues

  1. Whether the petitioners have established a violation of their fundamental rights under Article 22 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
  2. Whether the petitioners have adequately pleaded their case to allow the court to determine the nature of the claims and provide an appropriate remedy.

Reasoning

The court applies the principles established in Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic (No. 1) and Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance Civil Appeal No. 290 of 2012 to determine that the petitioners have not adequately pleaded their case to allow the court to determine the nature of the claims and provide an appropriate remedy.

Outcome

The appeal is dismissed.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010
  • Section 84(1) of the repealed Constitution
Cases cited (2)
  • Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic (No. 1)
  • Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance Civil Appeal No. 290 of 2012
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