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

Wafula Masai v Runda Water Limited [2014] KEHC 7373 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 7373 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
7373
Citation
[2014] KEHC 7373 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypePetitionPostureRespondent violated petitioner's right to fair administrative actionCoramD.S. MAJAN
Holding

Respondent violated petitioner's right to fair administrative action by refusing water connection based on mere suspicion.

Facts

Petitioner acquired land in Runda, Nairobi and planned to build a main house, domestic servant's quarter, and gym. He encountered issues accessing the land and obtaining water from Runda Water. He filed a petition against Runda Water Limited.

Issues

  1. Violation of right to fair administrative action
  2. Access to property and water supply

Reasoning

The court found the respondent's decision unreasonable and in violation of Article 47(1) of the Constitution, which requires administrative action to be fair and procedurally just.

Outcome

Petitioner's rights under Article 47(1) were violated by the respondent's decision.

Orders

  • A declaration issued that the petitioner's rights under Article 47(1) were violated
  • Petitioner shall be at liberty to apply for water connection
  • Petitioner shall only be subject to and charged any levies applicable to all the members of the Association
  • Respondent restrained from interfering with petitioner's construction
  • Either party has liberty to apply for further and other orders
  • No orders as to costs

Remedies

  • Declaration of violation
  • Application for water connection
  • Subject to levies applicable to all members
  • Restraint from interfering with construction
  • Liberty to apply for further orders

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Article 40 of the Constitution
  • Article 47(1) of the Constitution
  • Physical Planning Act
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