Koros & 2 others v Attorney General & 3 others (Environment & Land Petition E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 72 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed a land petition filed 22 years late, confirming that constitutional petitions in Kenya must still respect limitation deadlines.
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 Petition is statute barred
- 2.Whether the Tribunal proceedings and the subsequent adoption of the award were a nullity
- 3.Whether the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction
- 4.Whether the Petition meets the threshold of a Constitutional Petition
- 5.Which order should be made on costs
Key legal issues
#Limitation and inordinate delay in constitutional petitions
The Petition, filed 22 years after the 2002 verdict and adoption, was statute barred with no explanation for the delay; the Petitioners were riding on a mischief.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Janmohammed, the court held that constitutional petitions do not automatically escape limitation law. Factors include the nature of the right, the time taken to ventilate the violation, and whether the claimant rides on a mischief. Given the unexplained 22-year delay and the murky refund evidence, the petition was time barred.
Whether proceedings against a dead party were a nullity
The Tribunal proceedings and adoption were not a nullity; two parties were sued and the proper remedy would have been striking out the deceased's name.
The Petitioners bore the burden of proving the dispute was filed after Elijah Koros's death on 12th October 2001 and did not. Even assuming late filing, per Viktar Maina Ngunjiri, proceedings against multiple defendants where one was dead are not a nullity. Substitution of the deceased for execution purposes was lawful.
Jurisdiction of the Land Dispute Tribunal
The Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction because it dealt only with who received the refund money, not ownership of land.
Although Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act excludes title disputes, the court found the Tribunal's verdict concerned accountability for monies contributed by Talatany Farm Company Limited in the aborted sale, not determination of title to or ownership of registered land, so no nullity arose on jurisdictional grounds.
Threshold of a constitutional petition
The Petition did not meet the constitutional petition threshold as required by Anarita Karimi Njeru.
The court observed that the petition was a contractual money dispute disguised as a constitutional petition and failed the Anarita Karimi Njeru standard of precisely pleading the provisions violated and the manner of violation.
Legal principles established
#- A Constitutional Petition does not automatically oust the Limitation of Actions Act where there is inordinate delay.
- Proceedings instituted against more than one person, one of whom was dead at institution, are not a nullity; the dead person's name is struck out.
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition is dismissed with costs to the 4th Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 40(1) & (3), 43(1)(b), 47(1) and 50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Relief refused
#All declarations sought that the Tribunal proceedings and the Magistrate's Court award contravened the Constitution and rules of natural justice
The Petition was statute barred and devoid of merit; the Tribunal proceedings and adoption were not nullities and the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction
Nullification and setting aside of the judgment in Eldoret Chief Magistrate's Court Award MCCC No. 99 of 2002
The ruling of 18th June 2021 substituting the deceased was not a nullity; execution can proceed after a party's death
Permanent injunction and damages sought against the 4th Respondent
Any claim to land should have been addressed in an ordinary civil suit, not this Petition
Costs
Costs of the Petition to the 4th Respondent
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.
From the above analysis, it is clear that this Petition is not only statute barred but is also devoid of any merit. I proceed to dismiss it with costs to the 4th Respondent.
The delay is inordinate and the Petition is statute barred.
I therefore find that proceedings before the Tribunal and the subsequent adoption were not a nullity.
this Petition does not meet the threshold of a Constitutional Petition as has been held time and again in the case of Anarita Karimi Njeru -Vs- Republic.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the same authority as both 'Vektar Maina Ngunjiri' and 'Viktar Maina Ngunjiri' with inconsistent spelling
Land parcel number given as LR. NO. 2235 in the background but 'Embaraa Farm LR/NO. 2225' in the reliefs sought
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Koros & 2 others v Attorney General & 3 others (Environment & Land Petition E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 72 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Constitutional Petition (Eldoret ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/72/eng@2025-01-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.