Maina (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Kitur Arap Koech) & another v County Government of Kericho & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2934 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a landowners' constitutional claim, saying land disputes belong in ordinary civil suits, not petitions.
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 jurisdiction of this Court was properly invoked
- 2.Whether the Petitioners are entitled to the orders sought in the Petition
- 3.Who should bear the costs of the Petition
Key legal issues
#Whether the jurisdiction of the Court was properly invoked
The Court invoked the doctrine of constitutional avoidance; the disputes over trespass and alleged donation are civil issues of fact requiring oral evidence, not constitutional questions
The parties disputed whether the deceased trespassed/donated the land - twin issues of fact best established by oral evidence. The court relied on Rumasila v Kenya Urban Roads Authority, the Supreme Court in Communications Commission of Kenya v Royal Media Services, and KKB v SCM, holding that where ample statutory avenues exist, ordinary disputes should not be brought before a constitutional court.
Whether the Petitioners are entitled to the orders sought
The prayers could not be granted following the finding on jurisdiction
Given the finding that the petition raised civil disputes improperly framed as constitutional questions, the court declined to consider entitlement to the declarations, injunction, compensation or damages sought.
Costs
Costs awarded to the 1st and 2nd Respondents as the successful parties
Applying Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, costs follow the event and a successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs unless the court directs otherwise for good reason.
Legal principles established
#- Where there exist ample statutory avenues for resolution of a dispute, the constitutional court will decline to entertain it under the principle of constitutional avoidance
- A constitutional issue will not be determined where the matter may properly be decided on another basis
- Costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition is struck out with costs to the 1st and 2nd Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (Article 23 - jurisdiction in constitutional petitions; Articles 40, 47 alleged violations)
Relief refused
#Declaration that Kericho/Nyamanga/240 is private property of the estate of Kitur Arap Koech
The court invoked constitutional avoidance; the issues are civil disputes of fact determinable in a civil suit
Declaration of breach of Article 40; permanent injunction; compensation at market value; exemplary, punitive and general damages
Petition struck out on jurisdictional/constitutional avoidance grounds
Costs
Petition struck out with costs to the 1st and 2nd 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.
This Court, sitting as a Constitutional Court, invokes the doctrine of constitutional avoidance and finds that the issues raised in this petition are such as can be pursued in a Civil Court.
The principle of avoidance entails that a Court will not determine a constitutional issue, when a matter may properly be decided on another basis.
The procedural law relating to constitutional matters requires that where there exist ample statutory avenues for resolution of a dispute, the statutory options for redress must be followed and the constitutional Court will decline to entertain the dispute.
In the result, the Petition is hereby struck out with costs to the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#The 3rd Respondent is referenced in the pleadings and meeting attendance but never named in the judgment; the parties' full identities (including petitioners' names and respondents) must be inferred from deponents and correspondence rather than a stated title
Petitioners' submissions cite 'Juma Wacike & 11 Others' and 'Wilfred Juma Wasike & 11 Others' as separate decisions with identical citations, suggesting they may be the same case cited inconsistently
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maina (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Kitur Arap Koech) & another v County Government of Kericho & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2934 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kericho Constitutional Petition (Petition dated 19th June, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2934/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.