Wanjohi & 2 others v Attorney General & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition 74 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 6937 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled the EACC couldn't block a Nairobi property owner's bank charge through an informal directive without following lawful procedures.
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 established violations or threats of violations of their constitutional rights under Articles 40 and 47 of the Constitution?
- 2.What are the appropriate remedies, if any?
Key legal issues
#Whether the refusal to register the charge violated Article 40 property rights
Yes. The restraint on dealings was effected through an informal directive without any registered caveat, restriction, or court preservation order, and thus infringed Article 40
The court found no caveat or restriction was registered and the EACC never invoked Section 56 of ACECA to seek a court preservation order. The directive to the Registrar was informal and unsupported by lawful authority. Property rights may only be limited by law with clear procedural safeguards, and an indefinite restraint without such safeguards breached Article 40.
Whether the impugned directive amounted to administrative action under Article 47
Yes, the directive to the Registrar not to register dealings was an administrative decision and was procedurally unfair and irregular
While EACC investigations per se are not administrative action (per EACC v County Government of Kitui), the directive instructing the Registrar not to register dealings was a discrete administrative decision affecting legal rights. It was issued informally, without notice or hearing to the Petitioners, contrary to Article 47 and Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
Whether general and exemplary damages were payable
No, both heads refused
Punitive damages require proof of a highly culpable state of mind, which was absent. General damages were refused because the Respondents acted in good faith, albeit illegally, to preserve the status quo pending investigations. Declarations and injunctions were considered adequate vindication of the rights.
Effect of prolonged delay in investigations
Over a decade of inconclusive investigation, with only a single summons in 2012, could not lawfully sustain an indefinite restraint on the property
The 2nd Respondent claimed the Petitioners' non-cooperation stalled investigations, but the record showed only one summons in 2012 and no follow-up. The court noted EACC has arrest powers under Section 32 of ACECA it has not exercised, and such unexplained pendency cannot justify continuing interference with proprietary rights.
Legal principles established
#- Refusal or deferral of registration of a dealing by the Land Registrar amounts to administrative action under Article 47 and Section 2 of the Fair Administrative Action Act
- EACC's investigative powers are not administrative action under Article 47, but tenets of fair administrative action may apply to aspects of investigations
- EACC cannot restrict dealings in land by informal directive; it must register a caution/restriction or obtain a preservatory or inhibition order from the court
- Indefinite pendency of investigations without justification cannot justify continuing restraint of constitutionally protected property rights
- Article 40 protection excludes unlawfully acquired property; courts must interrogate the root of title
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Respondents' actions with respect to the refusal to register the charge over the suit property contravened the Petitioners' rights under Articles 40 and 47 of the Constitution
- 2.A permanent injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering with the Petitioners' right to charge L.R No 209/674 or deal with it in any other way allowed by law, unless the court orders otherwise
- 3.A mandatory injunction requiring the 2nd Respondent to withdraw forthwith its instructions to the 3rd Respondent prohibiting the Petitioners' dealings with L.R No 209/674, unless the court orders otherwise
- 4.A mandatory injunction requiring the 3rd Respondent to consider and allow the Petitioner's application for registration of a charge in accordance with the law, unless the court orders otherwise
- 5.The 2nd Respondent to bear the costs of the Petition
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 23 of the Constitution (jurisdiction to enforce Bill of Rights); Article 22
Relief refused
#General damages
Respondents acted in good faith, although illegally, in believing the status quo should be maintained pending investigations
Exemplary/punitive damages
No proof of a highly culpable state of mind
Order of certiorari to quash the 3rd Respondent's letter and specific mandamus orders as framed (subsumed in injunctive relief)
Court granted equivalent relief by way of declarations and injunctions in the final orders
Costs
The 2nd Respondent shall bear the costs of the Petition.
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.
A declaration does hereby issue that the Respondents’ actions with respect to the refusal to register the charge over the suit property have contravened the Petitioners’ rights under Articles 40 and 47 of the Constitution.
A permanent injunction does hereby issue restraining the Respondents from interfering in any way with the Petitioners’ right to charge the said L.R number 209/674 or deal with it in any other way allowed by the law, unless the court orders otherwise.
A mandatory injunction does hereby issue requiring the 3rd Respondent to consider and allow the Petitioner’s application for registration of a charge in accordance with the law, unless the court orders otherwise.
In the end, the Petition partly succeeds in the following terms:
Such indefinite pendency of investigations, without justification cannot lawfully be invoked to justify a continuing restraint upon constitutionally protected property rights.
These safeguards, consistent with the Constitution, serve to ensure that restrictions are lawful, transparent, and contestable.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency on investigation timeline: DW1 stated a letter was issued in 2006 restraining the Petitioners, yet the alleged directive relates to 2011-2012 investigations
Petition filed 2012 but judgment delivered 2025; Petitioners' submissions dated 2012 and 2025 while Respondents filed none
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wanjohi & 2 others v Attorney General & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition 74 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 6937 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 12th July 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6937/eng@2025-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.