Karanja & 14 others v National Land Commission & 6 others; Cheruiyot & another (Interested Parties) (Trading as Negra Communication Enterprises) (Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 429 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that building a road through private land without following compulsory acquisition rules is unconstitutional trespass requiring compensation and construction to stop.
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 Petition by the Petitioners meets the threshold for Constitution Petitions.
- 2.Whether the Constitution Petition has any merit and, if affirmative, if the parties were entitled to the reliefs sought?
- 3.Who will bear the Cost of the suit?
Key legal issues
#Whether the Petition met the pleading threshold for constitutional petitions
The Petition met the Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold of reasonable precision, with particulars of violation pleaded and titles produced.
Applying Mumo Matemu and Anarita Karimi Njeru, the court held the Petitioners pleaded their claim with reasonable precision, particularising the violations of Articles 40, 47, 35 and 10 and the breach of Sections 107-133 of the Land Act. The production of copies of titles lent credence to the claim. The Petition was undefended and therefore uncontroverted.
Whether the compulsory acquisition process was lawful
No lawful compulsory acquisition took place; the Respondents bypassed Sections 107-133 of the Land Act, violating Articles 40(3) and 60(1)(b) of the Constitution.
The 1st Respondent conceded in a Replying Affidavit that no request for acquisition had been made. Section 107(1) requires the Cabinet Secretary or CECM to request the NLC to acquire land, and Section 110(1) requires certification of public purpose. None of this was done. Entry and levelling of the land without notice, inquiry, valuation, award or compensation constituted unconstitutional deprivation of property.
Whether the Respondents' entry amounted to trespass and whether damages were payable
The Respondents' actions constituted trespass, actionable per se, entitling the Petitioners to damages without proof of specific loss.
Relying on Section 3(1) of the Trespass Act, Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, and Park Towers Ltd v John Mithamo Njika, the court found that title-holders are prima facie in possession and that trespass is actionable per se. The Petition being undefended, the Respondents demonstrated no better entitlement to the suit properties, and the court found them fully liable for damages for the trespass.
Costs
Costs follow the event under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act; the successful Petitioners were awarded costs jointly and severally against the Respondents.
Invoking Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and the dictum in Myres v Defries that costs follow the event, the court held that the Petitioners, having succeeded, were entitled to general costs of the action payable by the Respondents jointly and severally.
Legal principles established
#- Compulsory acquisition of land must strictly follow the statutory process under Part VIII of the Land Act, including a request to the National Land Commission under Section 107, notice, inquiry, valuation, award and compensation; entering and levelling private land without this process is unconstitutional deprivation of property.
- Trespass to land is actionable per se; proof of specific damage is not required.
- Constitutional violations must be pleaded with a reasonable degree of precision (Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold).
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that there was no proper, regular and/or lawful compulsory acquisition of the Petitioners' suit properties under Article 40(3) of the Constitution and Part VIII of the Land Act
- 2.Declaration that the continued construction of a road across the Petitioners' properties is irregular, unlawful, unconstitutional and a gross violation of their property rights and right to fair administrative action
- 3.Declaration that the opaque and secretive manner of the project contravenes Article 10 values of transparency and accountability
- 4.Declaration that failure to disclose project details violates the Petitioners' Article 35 right of access to information
- 5.Order of prohibition prohibiting any further construction of a road on the suit properties forthwith
- 6.Order of mandamus compelling the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents and the Interested Party to withdraw from the suit properties together with all paving and road construction equipment
- 7.Permanent injunction restraining the Respondents and the Interested Party from further trespassing on the suit properties
- 8.Award of damages of Kesh 1,500,000 for each Petitioner, payable by all the Respondents jointly and severally
- 9.Costs of the Petition awarded to the Petitioners
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23 and 258 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 (enforcement of Bill of Rights)
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.
There was no notice of intent to acquire, no inquiry, no participation by the Petitioners, no valuation, no award, and no compensation.
A declaration is hereby issued that there was no proper, regular and/or lawful compulsory acquisition of the Petitioners’ respective suit properties as contemplated under Article 40 (3) of the Constitution and Part VIII of the Land Act, prior to and for purposes of the project;
An award for damages of Kesh 1,500,000 for each Petitioner is made to be paid by all the Respondents jointly and severally;
Costs of the Petition is awarded to the Petitioners.
An order of Prohibition, is issued prohibiting any further construction of a road on the suit properties forthwith;
Issues in the judgment
#Damages quantum appears internally inconsistent: the Petitioners sought nominal damages of Kshs 100,000/- each (Kshs 1,500,000 total), but the disposition awards Kesh 1,500,000 for each Petitioner.
Judgment text contains numbering irregularities in the analysis section (paragraphs 36-42 appear out of sequence, with the Thorp v Holdsworth citation inserted mid-passage).
Paragraph 37 quoted Anarita Karimi Njeru with differing citation years (1976 in submissions paragraph, [1980] eKLR 154 in the court's citation).
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karanja & 14 others v National Land Commission & 6 others; Cheruiyot & another (Interested Parties) (Trading as Negra Communication Enterprises) (Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 429 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Petition dated 27/12/2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/429/eng@2026-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.