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

Munyalo Kamote & 29 others v County Government of Kajiado [2017] KEHC 39 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 39 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
39
Citation
[2017] KEHC 39 (KLR)
Decided
20 December 2017
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeConstitutional PetitionPostureRespondent's appeal from a High Court judgmentCoramR. NYAKUNDI
Holding

The policy is unconstitutional and discriminatory, infringing Petitioners' socio-economic rights. A new policy must be developed by the respondents within constitutional and statutory thresholds.

Facts

Petitioners are tomato farmers from Oloitoktok area within Kajiado County. They filed a petition against the County Government of Kajiado's policy on agricultural produce weights.

Issues

  1. Unconstitutionality of the policy due to lack of public participation and stakeholder engagement
  2. Manifest discrimination in the policy
  3. Infringement of Petitioners' socio-economic rights

Reasoning

The court found the policy unconstitutional due to a lack of public participation and stakeholder engagement, and it was manifestly discriminatory.

Outcome

Petition successful

Orders

  • A new policy be developed by the respondents within constitutional and statutory thresholds

Remedies

  • Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Crops Act 2013
  • County Government Act
Cases cited (8)
  • 2006 (2) SA 311 (cc) at para. 630, Sachs J
  • Kenya Human Rights Commission v Communications Authority of Kenya & 4 others [2018] eKLR
  • In the South African case of Minister of Health and Another vs New Clicks South Africa(Pty) Ltd and Others 2006 (2) SA 311 (CC), at para 630
  • In the Matter of the Mui Coal Basin Local Community {2015} eKLR
  • CCT 86/08 [2010] ZACC 5
  • Act No. 4 of 2015
  • Civil Appeal 52 of 2014
  • CCT16/98 2000 (1) SA 1, at paragraphs135 -136
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