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

Kenafric Properties Limited v Ruaraka Constituency Development Fund Committee & 2 others [2018] KEELC 4639 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 4639 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
4639
Citation
[2018] KEELC 4639 (KLR)
Decided
25 January 2018
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeConservatory OrderPosturePetitioner seeks a conservatory order to restrain Respondents from encroaching on the Suit Property and seeks declarations that the Respondents' unlawful action violated its constitutional right to property and that it is entitled to damages.CoramK. BOR, Mr. Chacha, Mr. Were, Mr. J. Oku
Holding

The court dismisses the petition dated 12/10/2016 with costs to the 2nd Respondent.

Facts

The Petitioner claims that the 1st and 2nd Respondents' workers erected a fence around the Suit Property with the intention of constructing the Ruaraka Constituency Development Fund Office on private land that has not been compulsorily acquired.

Issues

  1. Whether the Petitioner's constitutional rights under Article 40 of the Constitution were violated by the Respondents.
  2. Whether the court should grant the orders sought in the Petition.

Reasoning

The court finds that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the Respondents invaded the Suit Property and attempted to construct the Ruaraka Constituency Development Office on it.

Outcome

Dismissed

Orders

  • Petition dismissed with costs to the 2nd Respondent.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Constituency Development Act of 2013
  • National Government Constituencies Development Fund Act of 2015
Cases cited (1)
  • Abdul Waheed Sheikh & Others v Commissioner of Lands & 3 Others [2013] eKLR
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 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case