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

Chunky Limited & another v Patrick Ndune & 11 others [2018] KEHC 6791 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 6791 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
6791
Citation
[2018] KEHC 6791 (KLR)
Decided
16 April 2018
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypePetition for Constitutional ReviewPostureRespondents filed a Preliminary Objection, Petitioners opposed it.CoramJ. Mutungi, Nyarangi
Holding

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition due to the mixed nature of the prayers, which include issues of title, occupation, and land use that fall within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court.

Facts

Petitioners alleged that Respondents violated their fundamental rights and freedoms, particularly regarding the sale of their property and the use, occupation, and ownership of land.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition.
  2. Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to deal with constitutional matters touching on the violation and infringement of fundamental rights and freedoms.

Reasoning

The court held that while the High Court has jurisdiction to determine whether there has been a violation of fundamental rights and freedoms, it is specifically barred from determining issues of title, occupation, and land use. The court concluded that the Environment and Land Court has concurrent jurisdiction to deal with such matters.

Outcome

The petition was struck out with costs.

Orders

  • The petition was struck out with costs.

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Article 162(2) (b) of the Constitution
  • Article 165(5) (b) of the Constitution
  • Environment and Land Court Act No. 19 of 2011
Cases cited (2)
  • IFDID OLE TAUTA & OTHERS VS. ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2015] eKLR
  • Patrick Musimba vs. National Land Commission & 4 Others [2015] 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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case