Naikuni v Chairman Board of Trustee Purko Development Trust Seleila Ole Mwanik & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E013 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5167 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 Petitioner established that the suit property, Land Parcel No. CIS MARA/ENTIANI/1, is community land and whether the Respondents acted unlawfully or ultra vires in leasing the said land to the 4th Respondent
- 2.Whether the Respondents violated the Constitution, the Community Land Act, the Fair Administrative Action Act, the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, the Crops Act, or any other applicable law in the process leading to the impugned lease, particularly with regard to public participation, procurement, environmental safeguards and fair administrative action
- 3.Whether the Petitioner proved the alleged constitutional violations so as to warrant the grant of the declaratory, injunctive and consequential reliefs sought
- 4.Who should bear the costs of the Petition
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit property is community land and the lease was ultra vires the Trust Deed
Petitioner failed to identify any specific provision of the Trust Deed requiring General Assembly approval; ultra vires not established
Both parties acknowledged the Trust administers the land for the Purko Community, so the dispute was whether the Board exceeded its powers. The Petitioner repeatedly asserted General Assembly approval was mandatory but identified no specific provision of the Trust Deed to that effect. Under section 107 of the Evidence Act the legal burden lay on the Petitioner, and absent evidence of the specific provision breached, illegality could not be inferred.
Whether public participation, fair administrative action and access to information rights were violated
Not proved; the Petitioner produced no evidence that consultations were constitutionally inadequate or that information requests were unlawfully declined
Article 10 binds State organs and public bodies, and participation must be real and meaningful per the Supreme Court. However, apart from asserting that additional forums such as barazas, churches and vernacular radio ought to have been used, the Petitioner adduced no evidence of denial of participation. No documentary material demonstrated declined information requests under Article 35 or an identifiable administrative decision breaching the Fair Administrative Action Act.
Applicability of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, Crops Act and Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act
None proved applicable; no evidence the Trust is a procuring entity or that an EIA was legally required
No evidence showed the Purko Development Trust is a procuring entity within the meaning of the procurement statute or that the lease constituted regulated public procurement. The Petitioner did not demonstrate how the Crops Act provisions applied to the transaction, nor produce evidence that an Environmental Impact Assessment was legally required for the one-year lease.
Whether declaratory, injunctive and damages reliefs should issue
All reliefs predicated on proof of unlawful conduct, which failed; reliefs refused
Declaratory relief is discretionary and requires an established infringement or threatened infringement. Citing Mitu-Bell, constitutional remedies provide effective redress only where violations are proved by evidence. Having failed on the substantive findings, the Petitioner could not obtain declarations, cancellation of the lease, injunction, or damages.
Costs
Each party to bear own costs despite the Petition's failure, because it raised genuine public interest issues and was not brought in bad faith
Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act provides costs follow the event subject to the court's discretion. The Supreme Court in Jasbir Singh Rai affirmed discretion to depart where genuine public interest is raised. The Petition raised matters of public importance concerning trustee accountability for community assets and was not brought in bad faith or for an ulterior purpose.
Legal principles established
#- Illegality of trustees' conduct cannot be inferred; the specific provision breached must be evidenced
- The Constitution does not prescribe a single mode of public participation
- A competitive tender process alone does not render the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act applicable
- Damages for constitutional violations require proof of the violation first
Court orders
#- 1.The instant Petition is hereby dismissed entirely
- 2.Each party shall bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 22 and Article 258 of the Constitution (enforcement of Bill of Rights and Constitution)
Relief refused
#Declaration that the Respondents' actions were unconstitutional, illegal, null and void
Petitioner failed to prove ultra vires conduct or any constitutional or statutory violation
Order cancelling and/or voiding the lease
No legal basis established for nullifying the impugned lease
Permanent injunction restraining interference with the land
Remedies predicated on proof of unlawful conduct which was not established
General damages for constitutional violations
No constitutional infringement proved; damages not awarded as a matter of course
Costs
Each party shall bear its 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.
In the result, the Court finds and holds that the Petition herein is devoid of any merit and, and for the above reasons, the instant Petition is hereby dismissed entirely.
Each party shall bear its own costs.
Courts cannot infer illegality merely because a party alleges that trustees acted outside their mandate.
The Constitution does not prescribe a single mode of public participation; what is required is a reasonable opportunity for those affected to be heard.
The mere existence of a competitive tender process does not, without more, render the Act applicable.
It is now settled that damages for constitutional violations are not awarded as a matter of course.
Issues in the judgment
#The caption lists Freshcrop Limited twice - as '3RD RESPONDENT' and as 4th Respondent - while the body treats Freshcrop Limited as the 4th Respondent and Purko Development Trust as the 3rd
The 1st Respondent's name is rendered only as 'DEVELOPMENT TRUST' in the caption, inconsistent with the 'Purko Development Trust' named as 3rd Respondent; the 1st Respondent's full identity is unclear
Typographical error in the disposition paragraph ('merit and, and for')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Naikuni v Chairman Board of Trustee Purko Development Trust Seleila Ole Mwanik & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E013 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5167 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Narok ELCL Pet. No. E013 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5167/eng@2026-08-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.