Kariuki & another (Being Chairman and Treasurer suing in public interest and on behalf Karen Ngong View Estate Association) v Kenya Railways Corporation & another (Land Case Petition E017 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4098 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court declined to stop the Riruta-Ngong railway project, ruling compulsory acquisition disputes must first go to the Land Acquisition Tribunal.
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 are entitled to the conservatory orders sought
- 2.Whether the 1st Respondent's Notice of Preliminary Objection is merited (this Court's jurisdiction vis-à-vis the Land Acquisition Tribunal and doctrine of exhaustion)
Key legal issues
#Whether the High Court has first-instance jurisdiction over disputes on the process of compulsory acquisition
The Preliminary Objection is merited on the point of exhaustion; such issues must first go to the Land Acquisition Tribunal under Section 133C of the Land Act
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Albert Chaurembo Mumbo, the court held that even where superior courts have jurisdiction over profound questions of law, the first opportunity must be given to relevant tribunals under the parent statute. The Petitioners' complaints on the acquisition process were therefore subject to the mandatory exhaustion doctrine, though the Petition itself was not dismissed because other constitutional issues remain.
Whether conservatory orders halting the Riruta-Ngong railway project should issue
No; the Petitioners did not demonstrate a prima facie case, and the public-interest import of the project outweighs their interest
The court noted that owners of the properties gazetted for acquisition are not parties and had not sworn affidavits complaining of the acquisition process; the Petitioners offered no alternative designs and their future-impact concerns lacked technical evidence. Compulsory acquisition carries compensation, and following Multiple Hauliers, the project's import outweighs the Petitioners' interest.
Whether the public participation and environmental concerns render the gazette notice unconstitutional
Not established on the interim application; the Respondents deponed to stakeholder engagements and an EIA submitted to NEMA
The Respondents' affidavits detailed stakeholder meetings between November 2023 and April 2024 with questionnaires, minutes and attendance registers, and an EIA addressed to NEMA. The Petitioners' rebuttal (unsigned minutes, no invitations, no Kenya Forest Service engagement) was considered, but the court found the constitutional claims insufficient to justify interim restraint, particularly given limited participation by other affected estates.
Legal principles established
#- Under Section 133C of the Land Act, a party with an issue on the process of compulsory acquisition must first lodge a claim with the Land Acquisition Tribunal before going to court (doctrine of exhaustion)
- Conservatory orders are granted on the inherent merit of a case, bearing in mind public interest, constitutional values and proportionate magnitudes
- The right to property is not absolute; the State may deprive a person of land for a public purpose subject to payment of just compensation
Court orders
#- 1.Preliminary Objection by the 1st Respondent allowed on the point that disputes on the process of compulsory acquisition must first go to the Land Acquisition Tribunal
- 2.Notice of Motion dated 3rd February 2025 disallowed (conservatory orders refused); the Petition itself not dismissed as other constitutional issues remain
- 3.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitutional petition (Articles 10, 35, 40, 47, 69 invoked); jurisdiction contested under Section 133C of the Land Act
Relief refused
#Conservatory order restraining the Respondents from proceeding with the project and compulsory acquisition under Gazette Notice No. 16243
Petitioners failed to demonstrate a prima facie case; compulsory acquisition is lawful under Article 40(3)(b) subject to compensation; public interest in the project outweighs the Petitioners' interest; also failure to exhaust the Land Acquisition Tribunal
Costs
Costs will be in the cause.
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.
I find the 1st Respondent's Preliminary Objection merited on this point as the Petitioners have failed to adhere to the doctrine of exhaustion.
I find that the Petitioners have not adequately demonstrated a prima facie case to warrant the granting of conservatory orders sought.
I find that the import of the project outweigh the Petitioners' interest.
I find the Notice of Preliminary Objection merited, will allow it but not dismiss the Petition as there are other Constitutional issues raised. I however find the Notice of Motion dated the February 3, 2025 unmerited and will disallow it.
Costs will be in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not expressly name the court or case number; the sign-off reads only 'DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI ... CHRISTINE OCHIENG JUDGE'.
The judgment refers inconsistently to 'Section 133 C (6)' in the Preliminary Objection and 'Section 133 (c)' in the analysis of the same Land Act provision.
The court allows the Preliminary Objection on jurisdiction but does not dismiss the Petition, leaving its fate on the remaining constitutional issues unstated in the orders.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kariuki & another (Being Chairman and Treasurer suing in public interest and on behalf Karen Ngong View Estate Association) v Kenya Railways Corporation & another (Land Case Petition E017 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4098 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (interim application in a petition). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4098/eng@2025-05-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.