Ashish Ravat & Chandrakant Vinodkumar Ramdatmall Pal v County Government of Kisumu & City Manager, Kisumu City
The bottom line
#Kisumu's county government must pay two developers over Kshs. 34 million for demolishing their buildings without notice, hearing, or a court order.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the petition raised constitutional questions or was essentially a civil land/trespass dispute
The court held the petition was essentially a trespass/land ownership claim but proceeded to determine it on the merits rather than strike it out
The court applied the constitutional avoidance principle from the Supreme Court in Communications Commission and other authorities, observing that the issues framed (ownership, trespass, damages) were resolvable in a civil suit. However, it chose to consider the petition on its merits to avoid determining it on issues not raised, reserving the right to revisit the point.
Whether the Petitioners are the lawful owners of the suit properties
As between the Petitioners and the Respondents, the Petitioners are the lawful owners
The Petitioners produced certificates of title and proof of purchase, which are prima facie evidence of indefeasible ownership under sections 24-26 of the Land Registration Act and sections 27-28 of the repealed Registered Land Act. The Respondents did not prove fraud or illegality to the required standard, and claimed through schools that were not parties and had not established their claims in any forum.
Whether the Respondents demolished the Petitioners' structures and violated their rights
The Respondents demolished the structures without notice, hearing or court order, violating the Petitioners' constitutional right to property under Article 40
The Respondents admitted the demolition in their replying affidavit and press statement. The letter of 14th January 2021 from the schools made no reference to the suit properties and contained no authority to demolish. It was not for the Respondents to determine the legality of the Petitioners' titles; dispossession requires due process.
Whether the suit properties form part of Plot No. 244 allocated to Kisumu Boys and Kisumu Girls High Schools
The court could not determine with finality whether the suit properties are part of Plot No. 244 because the schools are not parties
The schools hold the registered lease for Plot No. 244 and claim the suit properties were illegally carved from it, but they were not joined. Determining their rights without hearing them would breach natural justice. The legality of the titles must wait for another forum.
What relief and damages the Petitioners are entitled to
Declaration, permanent injunction, special damages of Kshs. 24,222,240/- and general damages of Kshs. 10,000,000/- granted; Chapter 6 declaration, mandatory injunction and trespass damages refused
The declaration and injunction followed from the finding of illegal demolition. Special damages were limited to amounts actually proved. The Chapter 6 declaration failed because it was sought against an office, not an individual. The mandatory injunction failed for want of proof of Respondents' occupation. Trespass damages were refused as duplicative of constitutional compensation.
Legal principles established
#- A claim of a general civil nature arising from a civil wrong should not be brought as a constitutional petition if it raises no constitutional question requiring determination (constitutional avoidance)
- Registered proprietors hold title free from all other interests and claims, and a certificate of title is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership subject only to the statutory exceptions
- Even where property is alleged to be illegally acquired, it cannot be dispossessed without due process; a State organ may not itself determine the legality of a title
- A single act of trespass on registered land cannot attract two heads of damages - both trespass damages and constitutional compensation
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the actions of the Respondents complained of were illegal, unconstitutional, null and void
- 2.A permanent injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering with the Petitioners' use and possession of Title Nos. Kisumu Municipality/Block 6/608 to 6/613 and from settling or otherwise putting third parties in possession of the properties
- 3.Special damages of Kshs. 24,222,240/- with interest at court rates from the date hereof until payment in full
- 4.General damages of Kshs. 10,000,000/- for contravention and breach of the Petitioners' fundamental rights and freedoms, with interest at court rates from the date hereof until payment in full
- 5.The costs of the petition to the Petitioners
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 22(1) and 23 of the Constitution of Kenya, through the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules 2013
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ashish Ravat & Chandrakant Vinodkumar Ramdatmall Pal v County Government of Kisumu & City Manager, Kisumu City", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Petition No. E010 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5822/eng@2026-09-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.