Nthatu & another v Director Land Adjudication and Settlement Office & 10 others (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5243 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed a land dispute petition because the family failed to explain precisely which constitutional rights were violated and by whom.
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 meets the threshold of a constitutional petition under the law
- 2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought in the petition
- 3.What order should be made with regard to costs of the petition
Key legal issues
#Whether the petition met the threshold of a constitutional petition
It did not; the petitioners failed to plead with precision the specific constitutional provisions violated
Applying rule 10 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules 2013 and the Anarita Karimi Njeru principle as reaffirmed in Mumo Matemu, the court found that save for citing Articles 40, 47 and 258, the petitioners did not state how the respondents violated those provisions, did not specify each respondent's role in any violation, and relied on generalized allegations. The court also observed the suit ought to have been presented as an ordinary suit.
Whether the petitioners were entitled to the reliefs sought
No; entitlement to reliefs fails with the failure of the petition
Having found that the petition failed to meet the constitutional threshold, the court held that the petitioners could not be granted the declarations sought regarding the subdivision and registration of parcels 2156, 4022, 2265, 2255 and 2272. The second issue accordingly held in the negative and the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Costs of the petition
Petitioners to bear costs, including those of the 4th and 5th interested parties
Under rule 26 costs are discretionary, but the court considered the unsubstantiated allegations in the petition and the evidence adduced, and found it unfair to deny the 4th and 5th interested parties their costs. The petitioners were ordered to bear the costs of the petition.
Legal principles established
#- A party alleging violation of constitutional rights must plead the violation with a reasonable degree of precision
- A constitutional petition must disclose the specific constitutional provision violated, per rule 10(2) of the Mutunga Rules
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is rejected and dismissed for lack of merit
- 2.The petitioners shall bear costs of the petition
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 40, 47 and 258 of the Constitution of Kenya (invoked by petitioners)
Relief refused
#Declaration that the subdivision of parcel Tharaka North Gatunga adjudication section/2254 violated the petitioners' constitutional rights
Petition did not meet the constitutional petition threshold
Declaration that the subdivision was fraudulent and cancellation/revocation of resultant titles 2156, 4022, 2265, 2255 and 2272
Petitioners failed to plead the constitutional violations with precision; no relief granted
Declaration that registration of the interested parties as proprietors was unconstitutional and illegal
Petition based on generalized allegations; dismissed
Costs
The petitioners shall bear 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.
In the end, and the foregoing, all considered, this petition is rejected and dismissed for lack of merit.
The petitioner shall bear costs of the petition.
Constitutional violations must be pleaded with a reasonable degree of precision.
the constitutional petition does not disclose a single provision which was violated by the respondents. This omission offends rule 10(2) of the rules
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the supporting-facts narrative: paragraph 16 states the interested parties' land was 'inherited by their father Nthatu', which duplicates the petitioners' father's name (Nthatu Nkongoro); also paragraph 19 refers to 'the 1st petition' apparently meaning the 1st petitioner
Interested parties referred to as '4th and 5th interested parties' though only four interested parties are listed on the cause title
Judgment date inconsistency: replying affidavit of respondents sworn 25th November 2025, and petition dated 11th December 2023 described as filed in 2023, with submissions dated 20th April 2026 and judgment dated 31st July 2026 - chronology is internally consistent but the 2025-2026 dates appear anomalous relative to the 2023 cause number
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nthatu & another v Director Land Adjudication and Settlement Office & 10 others (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5243 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Land Petition No. E001 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5243/eng@2026-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.