Mbwese Mwinzi & 217 Others v Tana & Athi Rivers Development Authority & Another
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed 218 Kiambere Dam residents' challenge to eviction because they produced no evidence of their land claims.
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 are entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the Petitioners proved violations of Articles 35, 40 and 47 and the Land Acquisition Act
No; the claims remained unsubstantiated on a balance of probabilities.
The Petitioners alleged compulsory acquisition without adequate compensation and an unlawful eviction notice, but tendered no evidence identifying the specific parcels acquired, their interests, or that the land they occupy is subject to Embu ELC Case No. 148 of 2017. Without the underlying judgment, the court could not ascertain the scope of the eviction orders or whether the Petitioners were affected.
Whether the petition was properly instituted on behalf of all 218 petitioners
No; the authority to plead was signed by only five petitioners, contrary to Order 1 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The court noted that only the 2nd to 6th Petitioners signed the authority to plead and no material demonstrated authorization by the other persons on whose behalf the petition was brought, a procedural defect in the representative capacity.
Legal principles established
#- A petitioner seeking reliefs arising from compulsory acquisition must place before the court evidence identifying the specific parcels, the nature of the interests claimed, and the land occupied.
- A party relying on a judgment as the foundation of an eviction notice must avail that judgment so the court can ascertain the orders made and their scope.
- A representative petition requires authority from all persons on whose behalf it is brought, per Order 1 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition dated 03/05/2021 is dismissed
- 2.Costs to the Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional petition jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (Articles 1, 2, 3, 35, 40, 47, 258, 259 of the Constitution invoked in the petition)
Relief refused
#Order of prohibition against evictions
Petitioners failed to establish a basis for the grant of the orders sought
Order of certiorari to quash the eviction notice dated 16/02/2021
Claims unsubstantiated; judgment in Embu ELC Case No. 148 of 2017 not provided
Declaration that the eviction violates the Constitution and the Land Acquisition Act
Failure to prove violations on a balance of probabilities
Injunction restraining evictions
No evidence identifying the parcels or interests claimed
Costs
The Petition is dismissed with costs to the 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.
Ultimately, I find that the Petitioners have failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the Respondents violated Articles 35, 40, 47 or any of the other provisions of the Constitution relied upon in the Petition.
Consequently, the Petition dated 03/05/2021 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
The Court is therefore unable to ascertain the nature and extent of the orders made thereon, the land to which they relate, or whether the Petitioners fall within the category of persons affected by them.
There is no other material demonstrating that all persons on whose behalf the Petition was brought authorized the institution of these proceedings which is contrary to Order 1 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Issues in the judgment
#Page numbering inconsistent throughout (e.g. 'Page 7 of 6').
Replying affidavit sworn 29/01/2026 but judgment references petition of 2021; chronology appears anomalous.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mbwese Mwinzi & 217 Others v Tana & Athi Rivers Development Authority & Another", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Petition No. 18 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5645/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.