Nabhan & another v National Land Commission & 3 others (Environment & Land Petition E018 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 1108 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court dismissed a Kshs. 13.78 billion land compensation claim because the owners could not prove the government actually compulsory-acquired their land.
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 Petitioner has proved compulsory acquisition to warrant compensation
- 2.Whether the Petition offends the principle of drafting constitutional petitions, the principle of exhaustion, and the principle of constitutional avoidance
- 3.Whether the petition discloses a violation of the Petitioner's constitutional and fundamental rights
- 4.What remedies are available to the Petitioners
Key legal issues
#Whether compulsory acquisition of the suit property was proved
Not proved. The statutory acquisition process under Sections 107-133 of the Land Act, 2012 was never initiated.
The Land Act prescribes a staged process: a Cabinet Secretary or CECM requests the NLC to acquire land, the NLC gazettes a notice of intention, holds an inquiry, and awards compensation. Here the NLC denied receiving any request and no notice was published. The court found the claim of compulsory acquisition far-fetched and unsubstantiated.
Whether the petition meets the Anarita Karimi Njeru precision threshold
It does not; the petition failed to specify who did what, when, and which rights were infringed.
The court found the petition failed to identify which Respondent allegedly subdivided and allotted the land, when the subdivision occurred, who the third parties were, how the Petitioners related to Rashid bin Salim, and whether the 1920 indenture and modern search certificate referred to the same land. Without these particulars, liability could not be apportioned.
Whether constitutional avoidance and exhaustion barred the petition
Yes - the petition was in substance an ownership dispute requiring a civil suit with third parties joined.
The reliefs sought would require determination of ownership, an issue suited to viva voce evidence in a civil suit. Third parties occupying and awaiting titles were not sued, yet the claim turned on their allotment. The court declined constitutional jurisdiction, holding the dispute resolvable outside a petition.
Whether a violation of the Petitioners' constitutional rights was disclosed
No violation was established.
Because the acquisition was not proved, the claimed breaches of Articles 10, 40, 47 and 50 fell away. The Petitioners also did not demonstrate any attempt to seek compensation under the Land Act before litigating, and the 1st Respondent denied invoking the Land Act at all.
Legal principles established
#- A party alleging compulsory acquisition must prove compliance with the statutory procedure in Sections 107-133 of the Land Act, beginning with a request to the National Land Commission and a gazette notice of intention to acquire.
- Constitutional petitions must be pleaded with reasonable precision, identifying with particularity the provisions violated and the manner of violation (Anarita Karimi Njeru principle).
- A dispute that in substance concerns ownership of land and requires joinder of third-party allottees belongs in a civil suit, not a constitutional petition, per the doctrine of constitutional avoidance.
Court orders
#- 1.The current petition is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the petition are awarded to the Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional jurisdiction under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (Articles 10, 40, 47, 50 invoked); jurisdiction expressly conceded by the Respondents
Relief refused
#Declaration that the Respondents' actions were illegal, unconstitutional and amounted to compulsory acquisition
No compulsory acquisition was proved; the petition lacked precision
Compensation of Kshs. 13,780,000,000/- being the market value of the suit property
The 1st Respondent never received a request to acquire the land nor gazetted any notice of intention to acquire it
General, exemplary and aggravated damages for violation of fundamental rights
No constitutional violation was established; the claim was an imprecise land ownership dispute
Costs
The petition is dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
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.
The Petitioner provided no evidence that the 1st Respondent had received a request from the National or County Government or a public body to acquire the suit property.
The upshot is that the current petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.
For the reasons aforesaid, the current petition lacks specificity, offends the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, and the reliefs sought by the Petitioners cannot be granted.
this petition boils down to a land ownership feud that requires the so-called third parties to be joined in a civil suit (subject to the limitation of actions) and the issue of ownership addressed.
Issues in the judgment
#Petition number not stated anywhere in the judgment; the case is identified only by the Amended Petition dated 11th July 2024, though a reference to filing 'in 2023' appears in the analysis.
The first listed issue for determination is phrased as an assertion rather than a question ('The Petitioner has proved compulsory acquisition to warrant compensation.') despite the court describing the distilled matters as issues.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nabhan & another v National Land Commission & 3 others (Environment & Land Petition E018 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 1108 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 11th July 2024, Malindi (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1108/eng@2025-03-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.