Peter & 9 others (Petitioning on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of 50 Co-Petitioners) v County Government of Isiolo & 3 others (Petition E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 5184 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Isiolo dismissed 54 residents' claims to plots near Isiolo Airstrip because they could not prove they were ever formally allocated the 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 petitioners have accrued and/or acquired any lawful rights and/or interests in respect of the Properties that underpin the subject petition
- 2.Whether the petitioners' claim on the basis of compulsory acquisition is legally tenable or otherwise
- 3.Whether the prayer for declaration pertaining to declaration of the designated areas as an adjudication section is legally tenable
- 4.Whether the order for mandatory injunction against the 3rd Respondent to declare the designated areas as adjudication sections can issue on the face of Article 67(2) of the Constitution or otherwise
Key legal issues
#Whether petitioners acquired lawful rights over the plots
No. No certified council minutes, letters of allotment, or approved part development plans were produced; plots were unnamed and lacked particulars.
Allocation by the defunct County Council of Isiolo would be discernible only in duly certified minutes under section 80 of the Evidence Act; allotments over trust land required a part development plan under section 3 of the Physical Planning Act. The annexed plans were undated, unsigned and unapproved, hence devoid of probative value, and no allotment letters were tendered.
Whether the compulsory acquisition claim is tenable against the 2nd Respondent
Not tenable. Kenya Airports Authority had no power of compulsory acquisition; under the repealed Land Acquisition Act that power vested in the Commissioner of Lands, and now in the National Land Commission.
Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (Cap 295, repealed) empowered the Minister to direct the Commissioner to acquire land compulsorily. By 2016 the power had vested in the NLC under the Land Act 2012 and Article 67(2) of the Constitution. The claim against the 2nd Respondent was therefore misplaced and the petitioners non-suited on that limb.
Whether the declaration on adjudication sections is tenable
Not tenable. The areas are public land under Article 62; only the NLC may act in respect of them.
The designated areas, previously trust land, now constitute public land whose administration and management vests in the National Land Commission. Neither the County Government of Isiolo nor the Cabinet Secretary has capacity to declare public land an adjudication section; such action would be ultra vires and unconstitutional.
Whether a mandatory order can compel the 3rd Respondent to declare adjudication areas
No. Trust land has ceased to exist, the Trust Land Act was repealed, section 3 of the Land Adjudication Act confers discretion, and the prayer misapprehends Articles 62 and 67(2).
The Trust Land Act was repealed by the Land Registration Act 2012, superseding section 3 of the Land Adjudication Act to the extent it references trust land. Further, section 3 uses 'may' not 'shall', vesting a discretion in the Minister which a court cannot command. The relief is legally untenable.
Legal principles established
#- A letter of allotment does not by itself confer an interest in land; title arises only upon issuance of the allotment letter, fulfilment of its conditions and issuance of a certificate of title or lease
- Administration and management of public land vests exclusively in the National Land Commission; a county government or Cabinet Secretary cannot declare public land an adjudication section
- Where a statute vests a discretion, a court cannot compel its exercise in a particular manner
- Constitutional petitions require reasonable precision in pleading, including particulars of the property claimed; courts do not create rights but only vindicate acquired rights
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition be and is hereby dismissed
- 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
- Original constitutional petition jurisdiction; petition transferred to Isiolo vide the orders of Hon. Justice B. M Eboso, Judge
Relief refused
#Declaration of lawful property rights over the allocated plots
Petitioners produced no letters of allotment, no certified council minutes, and incomplete, unapproved part development plans; no plots were identified with particulars
Declaration that the 2005 compulsory acquisition violated constitutional rights
The 2nd Respondent had no power of compulsory acquisition; any such claim lay against the Commissioner of Lands/National Land Commission
Declaration that failure to declare the areas adjudication sections violated rights
The areas are public land under Article 62; neither the County Government nor the Cabinet Secretary may declare public land an adjudication section
Mandatory orders compelling the 1st Respondent to put petitioners into possession or allocate alternative plots
Flows from failure to establish any property rights and from the reliefs being legally untenable
Mandatory order compelling the 3rd Respondent to declare the areas adjudication areas under section 3 of the Land Adjudication Act
Trust land ceased to exist; section 3 confers discretion ('may' not 'shall') which the court cannot compel
General and/or exemplary damages
No violations established; petition dismissed in its entirety
Costs
Each party shall bear own 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.
The Petition be and is hereby dismissed.
Each party shall bear own costs.
It is settled law that an allotment letter is incapable of conferring interest in land, being nothing more than an offer, awaiting the fulfilment of conditions stipulated therein.
A right can only be protected when it exists in reality and not where it remains an illusion or a mere expectation.
the petition beforehand is premature and misconceived. Furthermore, the reliefs sought at the foot of the petition are contrary to the provisions of the constitution and same are thus legally untenable.
The principle in Anarita Karimi Njeru (supra) that established the rule that requires reasonable precision in framing of issues in constitutional petitions is an extension of this principle.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the Trust Land Act was repealed by the Land Registration Act 2012, whereas the petition itself and standard enumeration associate the Land Registration Act with registration; the repealing statute is stated internally without further support
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Peter & 9 others (Petitioning on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of 50 Co-Petitioners) v County Government of Isiolo & 3 others (Petition E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 5184 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Isiolo ELC Petition E001 of 2025 (originally Petition dated 21st October 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5184/eng@2025-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.