Githukurio v Mungai (The Legal Representative of Stephen Mungai Waita) & 3 others (Civil Appeal 75 of 2019) [2025] KECA 1277 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that a person unfairly affected by a land tribunal decision they never took part in can challenge it through a constitutional petition.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the court below had jurisdiction to entertain the petition challenging a judgment arising from an adoption of an award made by the Land Disputes Tribunal
Key legal issues
#Availability of constitutional petition to challenge an adopted tribunal award by a non-party
The High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition by a person who was not a party to tribunal proceedings and had no effective statutory avenue of challenge, where the alternative remedy is illusory.
Sections 8(1), 8(8) and 9 of the repealed Land Disputes Tribunal Act offered appeal rights only to parties to the dispute, and section 7(2) confined the subordinate court to adopting the award. The appellant, a non-party, learned of the proceedings only in 2015 when judicial review was time-barred. Relying on Abidha Nicholus and Lemita Ole Lemein, the Court held that where the statutory remedy is inadequate or illusory and fundamental rights are the primary issue, the petition is maintainable.
Error of the trial judge in identifying available remedies
The learned Judge erred in holding that the appellant could vary, set aside or review the adopted award in the same court or appeal against it, as those options were not efficacious for a non-party.
The Court found that the options identified by the learned Judge were 'clearly not efficacious': the magistrate's jurisdiction was restricted to adoption for execution, appeals lay only for parties, and judicial review had lapsed through no fault of the appellant. The decision in Florence Nyaboke Machani had not adequately considered whether a person with no civil-law avenue may resort to a constitutional petition.
Restraint on interlocutory appeals
Because the petition was terminated on a preliminary objection, the Court expressed its views only prima facie, leaving the merits for the trial court.
The Court invoked Mansur Said v Najma Surur Rizik Surur, Niazons [K] Limited v China Road & Bridge Corporation and Said Almed v Mannasseh Benga to caution that conclusive findings on an interlocutory appeal would prejudice the pending main trial and embarrass the trial judge.
Legal principles established
#- Where a litigant was never a party to tribunal proceedings and all statutory avenues of challenge are unavailable or illusory, the constitutional petition is not barred by the doctrine of exhaustion.
- A subordinate court adopting a tribunal award under section 7(2) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act has no power to review, alter, amend or set aside the award.
- On interlocutory appeals from rulings on preliminary objections, an appellate court should express its views only on a prima facie basis.
Court orders
#- 1.The order striking out the petition was set aside
- 2.An order dismissing the preliminary objection with costs was substituted
- 3.The petition was directed to be heard in the usual manner
- 4.Costs of the appeal were awarded to the appellant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court at Nyahururu
- Nyahururu Environment and Land Court Petition No. 20 of 2017
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction under the Court of Appeal Act over an appeal from the Environment and Land Court
Relief refused
#Conclusive determination of the merits of the petition
The appeal was interlocutory; the court declined to express conclusive views to avoid tying the hands of the trial judge
Costs
Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant; the preliminary objection dismissed with costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
We set aside the order striking out the petition and substitute therefor an order dismissing the preliminary objection with costs. We direct that the petition be heard in the usual manner.
Where a remedy provided under the Act is made illusory with the result that it is practically a mirage, the Court will not shirk from its Constitutional mandate
The subordinate court’s jurisdiction was restricted to adoption of the award for the purposes of execution.
It is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy; for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal.
The law is a living thing: it adopts and develops to fulfil the needs of living people whom it both governs and serves.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not print the Court of Appeal appeal number for this matter; the case number had to be inferred from the lower court record reference.
Thepetition's cited constitutional provisions are inconsistent within the judgment: paragraph 2 refers to Article 75(9) of the former Constitution while the reliefs refer to Articles 75 and 77.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Githukurio v Mungai (The Legal Representative of Stephen Mungai Waita) & 3 others (Civil Appeal 75 of 2019) [2025] KECA 1277 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Appeal (Nyahururu ELC Petition No. 20 of 2017 appeal) - as per judgment record. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1277/eng@2025-07-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.