Lunyasi & 3 others (Suing for and on behalf of the 244 Ngerek Community Families /Members) v Kenya Forest Service & 5 others (Petition E001 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 907 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck out a community land petition because an earlier National Land Commission decision already resolved their dispute — enforce it, don't refile.
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 petitioners have locus standi to institute and prosecute the instant petition
- 2.Whether this petition meets the threshold of a constitutional petition
- 3.Whether the petitioners are entitled to the orders sought in the petition
Key legal issues
#Locus standi of petitioners suing on behalf of 244 Ngerek community families
The petitioners failed to attach authority from the community members they purported to represent, so the group claim was defective, but they could still pursue the claim on their own behalf
The court noted that no authority from the alleged 244 members was attached, and the list annexed showed erased and substituted names and missing plot numbers. Relying on the Ephantus Muriuki Muhoro decision and Kirinyaga United Bar Owners Organization, it held that members on whose behalf an action is brought must be listed and give authority, especially where private remedies are sought. Nonetheless, failure to comply did not extinguish the petitioners' personal claims.
Whether the petition satisfied the precision and particularity threshold
The petition satisfied the Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold since particulars of the alleged infringements were pleaded
The court applied the established rule that a constitutional petition must state with reasonable precision the articles violated and the manner of infringement. It found that the petitioners alleged violations of Articles 10, 27, 28, 40 and 43 and provided particulars at paragraphs 40 to 44 of the petition, meeting the Mumo Matemu and Anarita Karimi Njeru standard.
Whether the court could entertain the petition given the prior NLC determination
The issues in the petition had already been conclusively determined by the National Land Commission; the petitioners should have enforced that determination rather than file a fresh petition, and the petition was struck out
The court found that the NLC's determination of 7th February 2019, which found both Koibem and Ngerek communities had valid claims and issued recommendations for degazettement and handover, remained unchallenged and binding. Relying on the CAOA v Kenya Vision 2030 Delivery Board decision, the court held such recommendations have the force of law and are enforceable, and the statutory scheme (Sections 112 and 133A of the Land Act, Articles 47, 50(1) and 67, and the Fair Administrative Action Act) had been exhausted.
Legal principles established
#- Recommendations of a constitutional commission such as the National Land Commission have the force of law and are enforceable by a court of law; they cannot be discarded or overlooked
- Disputes relating to compulsory acquisition and compensation must go through the NLC inquiry under Section 112 of the Land Act, then the Land Acquisition Tribunal under Section 133A, with appeal to this court on questions of law only
- Where a group action is brought on behalf of others, the members must be listed and their authority obtained, especially where private remedies are sought; failure to do so does not, however, vitiate the claimant's own claim
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is struck out
- 2.Each party shall bear own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 47, 50(1) and 67 of the Constitution; Section 133D of the Land Act, 2022
Relief refused
#Declarations of rights violations under Articles 10, 27, 28, 40 and 43 and all consequential reliefs including mandamus, resettlement and compensation
The dispute had been conclusively determined by the National Land Commission; the petitioners should have enforced that determination rather than file a new petition
Costs
Each party shall bear own costs, given the public interest element
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.
Afortiori, this petition is hereby struck out.
Given the nature of this petition and the existence of an element of public interest, each party shall bear own costs.
The same is a binding pronouncement and creates rights and obligations, which are amenable to be actualized and can thus, not be discarded, disregarded and/or otherwise be overlooked.
disputes relating to propriety and claims for compensation by persons interested in land which is the subject of compulsory acquisition are to be adjudicated by the National Land Commission through the mechanism of inquiry contemplated under Section 112 of the Land Act 2022 (2012)
Failure by the petitioners to comply with that requirement of the law, however, does not vitiate their right to pursue the claim on their own behalf.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to 'Section 133D of the Land Act 2022 (2012)' as vesting appellate jurisdiction, but the quoted provision concerns appeals from the Land Acquisition Tribunal; the parties' roles and references are internally consistent but the numbering/date formatting ('2022 (2012)') is ambiguous
The petition lists the constituency as 'Engwen Constituency' in one place while the narrative elsewhere refers to 'Ngerek Engwen Constituency' and 'Engwen' inconsistently
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lunyasi & 3 others (Suing for and on behalf of the 244 Ngerek Community Families /Members) v Kenya Forest Service & 5 others (Petition E001 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 907 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 19th April 2023 (Kapsabet). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/907/eng@2025-02-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.