1. By a Petition dated 18th September, 2024, the Petitioner sought the following orders: -
a) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the 4th Respondent was obligated to remit payment of Kshs. 3,425,000.00 as consideration towards the purchase or acquisition of Land Reference Number 13287/1 (title number IR 40575) before the registration of the transfer on 3rd March, 1986 and that whereas the transfer and Grant Number 40236 purports that payment of this amount was made to the 1st Respondent, the 4th Respondent and or the 5th and 6th Respondents did not and have not made this payment to the 1st Respondent State Corporation/ Government.
b) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the 7th Respondent was obligated to remit payment of Kshs. 279,960.00 as consideration towards the purchase or acquisition of Land Reference Number 13287/2 (title number IR 41767) before registration of the transfer on 31st December, 1986 and that whereas the transfer and Grant Number 40236 purports that payment of this amount was made to the 1st Respondent, the 7th Respondent and or the 5th and 6th Respondents herein did not and have not made this payment to the 1st Respondent State Corporation/ Government.
c) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the 8th Respondent was obligated to remit payment of Kshs. 24,000.00 as consideration towards the purchase or acquisition of Land Reference Number 13287/88 (title number IR 55573) before registration of the transfer on 22nd April, 1992 and that whereas the transfer and Grant Number 40236 purports that payment of this amount was made to the 1st Respondent, the 8th Respondent and or the 5th and 6th Respondents herein did not and have not made this payment to the 1st Respondent State Corporation/ Government.
d) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the indication in the transfer instruments for the parcel of land namely L.R No. 13287/1 and Grant Number 40236 that consideration of Kshs. 3,425,000.00 was paid to the 1 Respondent by the 4th Respondent, when it was not, was intended to deceive, illegally alienate public property, is fraudulent and constitutes a gross violation of sections 11(1) and 15(1) of the Public Officer Ethics Act, 2009 and Articles 73(1)(a) and 73(2)(b) of the Constitution and the national values and principles of governance under Article 10 of the Constitution by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Respondents.
e) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the indication in the transfer instruments for the parcel of land namely L.R No. 13287/2 and Grant Number 40236 that consideration of Kshs. 279,960.00 was paid to the 1st Respondent by the 7th Respondent, when in reality it was not, was intended to deceive, illegally alienate public property, is fraudulent and constitutes a gross violation of sections 11(1) and 15(1) of the Public Officer Ethics Act 2009 and Articles 73(1)(a) and 73(2)(b) of the Constitution and the national values and principles of governance under Article 10 of the Constitution by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Respondents.
f) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the indication in the transfer instruments for the parcel of land namely L.R No. 13287/88 and Grant Number 40236 that consideration of Kshs. 24,000.00 was paid to the 1st Respondent by the 8th Respondent, when in reality it was not, was intended to deceive, illegally alienate public property, is fraudulent and constitutes a gross violation of sections 11(1) and 15(1) of the Public Officer Ethics Act, 2009 and Articles 73(1)(a) and 73(2)(b) of the Constitution and the national values and principles of governance under Article 10 of the Constitution by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Respondents.
g) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the 1st Respondent and its officers illegally aided and or abdicated their mandate and public trust in conveying interest over Land Reference Number 13287/1 (certificate of title IR 40575), Land Reference Number 13287/2 (certificate of title IR 41767) and Land Reference Number 13287/88 (certificate of title IR 55573) without payment of consideration to the 4th, 7th and 8th Respondents respectively.
h) A declaration be and is hereby issued declaring that by dint of sections 12(2) and 13(1) and (2)(d) of the Agricultural Development Corporation Act, Cap 444 the acquisition of and registration of the transfer for the parcel of land, namely, Land Reference Number 13287/1 (title number IR 40575) in favour of the 4th Respondent on 3rd March, 1986 without payment of Kshs. 3,425,000.00 to the 1st Respondent is illegal, null and void.
i) A declaration be and is hereby issued declaring that by dint of sections 12(2) and 13(1) and (2)(d) of the Agricultural Development Corporation Act, Cap 444, the acquisition of and registration of the transfer for the parcel of land, namely, Land Reference Number 13287/2 (title number IR 41767) in favour of the 7th Respondent on 21st December, 1986 from the 1st Respondent without payment of Kshs. 279,960.00 to the 1st Respondent is illegal, null and void.
j) A declaration be and is hereby issued declaring that by dint of sections 12(2) and 13(1) and (2)(d) of the Agricultural Development Corporation Act, Cap 444, the acquisition of and registration of the transfer for the parcel of land, namely, Land Reference Number 13287/88 (title number IR 55573) in favour of the 8th Respondent on 22nd April, 1992 from the 1st Respondent without payment of Kshs. 24,000.00 to the 1st Respondent is illegal, null and void.
k) A declaration be and is hereby issued declaring that: -
a) The acquisition of Land Reference Number 13287/1 from the 1" Respondent by the 4th Respondent and his registration as the proprietor thereof on 3rd March, 1986 is tainted by manifest violations of the national values and principles of rule of law, good governance, integrity, transparency and accountability under Articles 10(2)(a) and (c) of the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional, illegal, null and void.
b) The acquisition of Land Reference Number 13287/2 from the 1st Respondent by the 7th Respondent and his registration as the proprietor thereof on 31st December, 1986 is tainted by manifest violations of the national values and principles of rule of law, good governance, integrity, transparency and accountability under Articles 10(2)(a) and (c) of the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional, illegal, null and void.
c) The acquisition of Land Reference Number 13287/88 from the 1st Respondent by the 8th Respondent and his registration as the proprietor thereof on 22nd April, 1992 is tainted by manifest violations of the national values and principles of rule of law, good governance, integrity, transparency and accountability under Articles 10(2)(a) and (c) of the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional, illegal, null and void.
l) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the 4th Respondent having acquired the title over L.R No. 13287/1 in breach of sections 12(2) and 13(1) and (2)(d) of the Agricultural Development Corporation Act, Cap 444 and the constitutional values of rule of law, good governance, integrity and transparency, he lacked capacity to pass good title to the 5th and 6th Respondents.
m) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the 7 Respondent having acquired the title over L.R No. 13287/2 in breach of sections 12(2) and 13(1) and (2)(d) of the Agricultural Development Corporation Act, Cap 444 and the constitutional values of rule of law, good governance, integrity and transparency, he lacked capacity to pass good title to the 5th and 6th Respondents.
n) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the 8th Respondent having acquired the title over L.R No. 13287/88 in breach of sections 12(2) and 13(1) and (2)(d) of the Agricultural Development Corporation Act, Cap 444 and the constitutional values of rule of law, good governance, integrity and transparency, he lacked capacity to pass good title to the 6th Respondent.
o) A declaration be and is hereby issued declaring that neither the 6th Respondent, Sian Enterprises Limited nor its predecessors in title have any valid, legal or recognizable interest over the properties known as Land Reference Number 13287/1 (certificate of title IR 4075 Land Reference Number 13287/2 (certificate of title IR 41767) and Land Number 13287/88 (certificate of title IR 55573) and any interest that they hold is invalid, illegal, null and void.
p) A mandatory injunction be and is hereby issued compelling the Chief Land Registrar, the 3rd Respondent in the petition to annul, revoke and cancel any alleged land ownership documents held by the 6th Respondent and its predecessors in title in connection with the properties known as I.and Reference Number 13287/1 (certificate of title [IR 40575), Land Reference Number 13287/2 (certificate of title IR 41767) and Land Reference Number 13287/88 (certificate of title IR 55573) and revert and vest ownership and interest thereof on the 1 Respondent, the Agricultural Development Corporation herein within 7 days of the judgment hereof.
q) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the 1st Respondent is entitled to ownership, use and possession of the properties known as Land Reference Number 13287/1 (certificate of title IR 40575), Land Reference Number 13287/2 (certificate of title IR 41767) and Land Reference Number 13287/88 (certificate of title IR 55573) to the exclusion of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Respondents as well as their agents, servants and employees.
r) A permanent injunction against the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Respondents be and is hereby issued prohibiting them, whether by themselves, their agents or servants from entering upon, remaining upon, trespassing onto, transferring, occupying, leasing, charging, alienating, assigning or in any manner whatsoever continuing to use, plough, lease or development the properties known as Land Reference Number 13287/1 (certificate of title IR 40575), Land Reference Number 13287/2 (certificate of title IR 41767) and Land Reference Number 13287/88 (certificate of title IR 55573) situated at Ngata in Nakuru City County within 7 days of the judgment herein, in default, an eviction order does issue and the Officer Commanding Station, Menengai Police Station or any other nearest police station do ensure compliance and or provide security during eviction.
s) In the alternative to prayers (xvi), (xvii) and (xviii) above, a mandatory order of injunction be and is hereby issued compelling the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Respondents to jointly and or severally: -
a) Pay the 1st Respondent State Corporation the sum of Kenya Shillings Ten Billion Two Hundred and Thirty Million Only (Kshs. 10,230,000,000.00), being the current market price for the parcel of land namely L.R No. 13287/1 as the purchase price and a condition precedent to validation of the interest within 30 days of the judgment herein in default of which the reliefs under prayers (xvi), (xvii) and (xviii) should take effect.
b) Pay the 1st Respondent State Corporation the sum of Kenya Shillings Three Billion Four Hundred and Ninety-Five Million Only (Kshs. 3,495,000,000.00), being the market price for the parcel of land namely LR No. 13287/2 as the purchase price and a condition precedent to validation of the interest within 30 days of the judgment herein in default of which the reliefs under prayers (xvi), (xvii) and (xviii) should take effect.
c) Pay the 1st Respondent State Corporation the sum of Kenya Shillings Three Hundred Million Only (Kshs. 300,000,000.00), being the current market price for the parcel of land namely L.R No. 13287/88 as the purchase price and a condition precedent to validation of the interest within 30 days of the judgment herein in default of which the reliefs under prayers (xvi), (xvii) and (xviii) should take effect.
t) A declaration be and is hereby issued that in failing to provide the Petitioner with information according to the application or request for information dated 5th August, 2024 in connection to the alienation of the properties known as Land Reference Number 13287 1 (certificate of title [IR 40575), Land Reference Number 13287/2 (certificate of title IR 41767) and Land Reference Number 13287/88 (certificate of title IR 55573), the 1st Respondent herein has breached the Petitioner’s right to access information under Articles 35 (1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution and section 4 of the Access to Information Act, 2016.
u) An award for mesne profits jointly and severally payable to the 1st Respondent by the: -
a) 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents in connection with their illegal occupation of L.R No. 13287/1.
b) 7th, 5th and 6th Respondents in connection with their illegal occupation of L.R No. 13287/2.
c) 5th and 8th Respondents in connection with their illegal occupation of L.R No. 13287/88.
v) An order for costs of this petition.
2. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents filed grounds of opposition dated 11th October 2024, and stated that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any act or omission by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents in relation to the suit parcels which constitute a violation of fundamental rights and freedoms in the Constitution.
3. The Respondents further stated that the Petitioner has filed an action for recovery of land in the form of a Petition in an attempt to avoid or circumvent the statutory limitation of 12 years as provided for by the Limitation of Actions Act Cap 22 Laws of Kenya, and urged the Court to dismiss the Petition with costs.
4. The 4th Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 15th November 2024, by Ambassador Major General (Rtd) JAMES MUTUA MULINGE, who deponed that he is one of the Administrators of the estate of the late General Mulinge.
5. He deponed that this matter came to his attention vide a newspaper advertisement dated 24th September 2024 at page 4 of Daily Nation, and was surprised to find out that the Petitioner had sought leave to effect substituted service upon the 2nd and 3rd Respondents vide a newspaper advertisement, the prayer of which the court declined. That to his consternation the same was prominently reported on page 10 of the Daily Nation covering more than half a page the next day on 15th October 2024.
6. The 4th Respondent contended that the publication showed the Petitioner’s real intention was to publicly humiliate the Respondents with claims that he cannot substantiate. Further that the Petition is an abuse of court process as it seeks to recover funds on behalf of the 1st Respondent, which is a statutory body capable of suing and being sued in its name.
7. The Respondent further deponed that the Petitioner’s allegation that his late father caused the suit property to be registered in his name without paying the consideration with a fraudulent common intention is not supported by any evidence, hence preposterous and defamatory.
8. The 4th Respondent averred that the Petitioner’s attached valuation report stated that there is no evidence to show that the subject property was irregularly or illegally acquired and the Valuer confirmed that the property does not fall under the category of public purpose or the Ndungu Land Report. He urged the Court to dismiss the Petition with costs.
9. The 5th, 6th and 8th Respondents, in opposition to the Petition, filed their replying affidavit sworn on 11th October, 2024, by the 8th Respondent, where he averred that the Petition was frivolous, an abuse of court process and a political and personal vendetta.
10. He averred that the Petitioner has disguised a purely commercial and civil claim as a constitutional issue, and the Petitioner failed to demonstrate what right has been violated and manifestation of that contravention as required in a constitutional Petition.
11. The 8th Respondent averred that the Petitioner sought declarations of illegal property transfers and unpaid consideration, which are issues that belong in a commercial court and not a constitutional one.
12. He averred that the Petition attempts to frame the lawsuit as a public interest litigation and further that the public did not have a pecuniary stake in the 1st Respondent’s sale of agricultural land. He added that if there were any financial losses due to unpaid consideration, that loss would be suffered exclusively by the 1st Respondent, which has the legal capacity to sue on its own behalf, rather than the public.
13. The 8th Respondent further averred that the 1st Respondent entered into independent, private contracts for the sale of the suit properties (L.R. Nos. 13287/1, 13287/2, and 13287/88) with the 4th and 7th Respondents, and him. He also stated that the Petitioner was never a party to these contracts, which were not designed to confer any benefit upon him; therefore, the Petitioner fundamentally lacked the legal standing to enforce the contracts or to demand payment on behalf of the 1st Respondent. He added that it was peculiar that the Petitioner demanded payments, which the 1st Respondent itself has not demanded.
14. The 8th Respondent contended that the Petitioner breached the Respondents’ statutory privacy rights under Article 31 of the Constitution (Right to Privacy) and Section 25 of the Data Protection Act by demanding access to the private allocation letters, title deeds, ownership documents and statements of accounts.
15. The 8th Respondent further averred that the 1st Respondent was specifically mandated to sell the subdivided portions of land on a willing buyer willing seller basis following directives from the late President Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi, which sale targeted members of the Armed Forces such as Major Generals and Constables. The 8th Respondent stated that his role at the time of acquisition of the suit land was strictly that of a Personal Assistant to the late President and not a Personal Secretary. He denied having the power or influence to manipulate the actions of independent Military Generals or the 1st Respondent regarding land allotments.
16. The 8th Respondent denied the Petitioner’s claim that the land was acquired without payment of the consideration of Kshs. 3,425,000/ Kshs. 279,960/ and Kshs. 24,000/. He averred that the official transfer documents explicitly acknowledged receipt of the purchase price and effectively and legally passed proprietary interest to him.
17. In conclusion, the 8th Respondent urged the court to apply the principle of constitutional avoidance and find that the Petition did not meet the constitutional threshold as it offended the doctrine of privity of contract and that it was a commercial claim disguised as a constitutional Petition.
18. The parties canvassed the Petition by way of written submissions, which were duly filed, and highlighted on 22nd April 2026.
PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS
19. Counsel for the Petitioner filed submissions dated 20th February, 2026, and identified the following issues for determination;
a) Whether the Petition is vague, meets the threshold for a public interest litigation under the Constitution, and is properly before this Court.
b) Whether L.R Nos. 13287/1, 13287/2 and 13287/88 were illegally, unprocedurally, and fraudulently acquired.
c) Whether the 6th Respondent can be deemed an "Innocent Purchaser for Value without Notice".
d) Whether the 1st Respondent has violated the Petitioner’s right to access to information.
e) What reliefs should issue.
20. On the first issue as to whether the Petition meets the threshold for a public interest litigation under the Constitution, counsel submitted that the Petition is brought pursuant to Articles 22 and 258 of the Constitution, which expressly grant every person the right to institute proceedings claiming that the Constitution has been contravened or is threatened with contravention. Counsel further cited Article 258(1), which permits any person to institute proceedings in the public interest without demonstrating personal injury or proprietary interest.
21. It was counsel’s submission that the Petition concerns alleged unlawful alienation of public land by high-ranking public officials in contravention of the Constitution, and public land being a public good, its protection is thus inherently a matter of public interest capable of being litigated by any citizen. Counsel further submitted that the Petition also concerns the abdication of responsibilities and duties under the Constitution, which undermines governance, accountability, and the protection of public resources, that can be litigated by any citizen, and relied on the case of Kinyanjui V Attorney General & another [2016] KEHC 5104 (KLR).
22. Mr. Keaton submitted that the Petitioner has the locus standi and has met the threshold as per the Anita Karimi Case . Counsel submitted that the Petitioner has expressly identified the constitutional provisions violated, including Articles 10, 35, 40(6), 73, and 201 of the Constitution; has clearly demonstrated the manner of violation, namely the fraudulent transfer of public land from the Agricultural Development Corporation without payment of consideration as indicated in the transfer instruments; provided detailed particulars including the specific parcels of land involved, namely L.R. Nos. 13287/1, 13287/2, and 13287/88, the chronology of transfers, the parties involved in the impugned transactions, and the manner in which the alleged illegality was perpetuated through subsequent transfers.
23. It was counsel’s submission that the 5th, 6th and 8th Respondents have filed a detailed Replying Affidavit and submissions addressing their acquisition, ownership, and legality of the suit properties, hence cannot assert that the Petition is vague. Counsel submitted that courts have cautioned against a rigid and technical application of the Anarita Karimi principle and emphasized that constitutional litigation should not be defeated by procedural formalism where the pleadings disclose a substantive constitutional controversy and relied on the case of Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance V Attorney General & 2 Others, Petition 229 of 2012.
24. On the Respondent’s contention that the Petition involves private contracts, between ADC and the purchasers, counsel argued that the 1st Respondent, the Agricultural Development Corporation (“ADC”) is a Government parastatal established under the Agricultural Development Corporation Act, Cap 444, a statutory body established for and on behalf of the people of Kenya, and is required to be prudent in managing the resources that belong to them. Further, the doctrine of privity of contract generally prevents third parties from enforcing a contract, but it cannot be used to hide fraudulent transactions by public bodies from constitutional scrutiny, and relied on the case of Ms. Priscilla Nyokabi Kanyua vs. Attorney General & Interim Independent Electoral Commission Nairobi HCCP No. 1 of 2010.
25. Mr. Keaton further submitted that the Petitioner is not seeking to enforce a contract, but to set aside an unconstitutional and fraudulent alienation of public land, which was sold without payment of consideration, hence should be declared null and void. Counsel relied on the Petitioner’s supplementary affidavit sworn on 18th October, 2024, where the annexed letters acknowledged that they never paid Kshs. 3million.
26. On the issue as to whether the suit properties were lawfully alienated, counsel submitted that the Petitioner has demonstrated, through documentary correspondence from the 1st Respondent, that no such payments were ever received from the original allottees, in respect of L.R. No. 13287/1, to the late General Jackson Mulinge, which was registered on 3rd March 1986, at a stated consideration of Kshs. 3,425,000.00. Similarly, in respect of L.R. Nos. 13287/2, 13287/88, transferred on 31st December 1986, and 24th April 1992, at a consideration of Kshs. 279,960.00, and Kshs. 24,000.00, respectively.
27. Counsel submitted that the legal consequence of non-payment of consideration was that no valid interest was conferred on the original allottees, which they could pass to the 5th and 6th Respondents, and cited the case of Torino Enterprises Limited V Attorney General (Petition 5 (E006) of 2022) [2023] KESC 79 (KLR).
28. He further submitted that there were transfers effected to the Respondent that were contrary to the conditions and the law, and stated that the 1st Respondent had power to sell or alienate the properties but it had to do so in accordance with the law. Counsel relied on the case of Kipkebut Kemboi V Richard Macharia & 2 others [2025] KECA 1665 (KLR), and submitted that the alienation of L.R. Nos. 13287/1, 13287/2 and 13287/88 was unlawful, unconstitutional, and contrary to statute.
29. Mr. Keaton also submitted that they had attached the Respondent’s CR 12, which were companies owned by the 8th Respondent, hence could not claim to be bona fide purchasers since the initial considerations were never paid. He relied on the cases of Dina Management Ltd V County Government of Mombasa & 5 others (Petition 8 (E010) of 2021) [2023] KESC 30 (KLR) and Katende V Haridar & Company Ltd [2008] 2 EA 173.
30. According to counsel, the Petitioner had requested material information which was never provided, and relied on Article 35(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution and section 4(1) of the Access to Information Act, 2016, which provide that every citizen has the right to access information held by the state and information held by another person and required for the exercise or protection of any right or fundamental freedom. Counsel further cited the case of Katiba Institute V Presidents Delivery Unit & 3 others [2017] KEHC 2183 (KLR).
31. He submitted that the Petitioner requested for the letters of application for allocation of L.R Nos 13287/1, 13287/2 and 13287/88, the 1st Respondent’s allocation letters for purposes of purchase of L.R Nos. 13287/1, 13287/2 and 13287/88, correspondence relating to non-payment of the purchase price for L.R Nos 13287/1, 13287/2 and 13287/88, Titles and ownership documents for LR No.s13287/1, 13287/2 and 13287/88, statement of account in respect to L.R Nos 13287/1, 13287/2 and 13287/88, which information would have shown that L.R Nos. 13287/1, 13287/2 and 13287/88 were illegally alienated. Counsel stated that to date, the 1st Respondent has refused and/or neglected to provide the Petitioner with the requested information.
32. On 22nd April 2026, counsel for the Petitioner highlighted the submissions and reiterated the issues for determination in the Petition and emphasized that the Petitioner has met the threshold as laid down in the Anarita Karimi case and rule 10(3) of the Mutunga Rules.
33. Counsel further submitted that the Respondents cannot rely on the doctrine of bona fide purchaser as the consideration was never paid, hence the properties were illegally alienated. Counsel therefore urged the court to allow the Petition as prayed.
34. In response to the Respondents' submission, counsel submitted that the doctrine of adverse possession did not apply in the instant case and that the Petitioner had the locus standi; further that the valuation was done by a reputable firm.
35. Additionally, counsel submitted that the Petitioner was not seeking to enforce a contractual dispute but to set aside an unconstitutional alienation of public land, that the Petitioner was not a party to a land sale agreement, and that the burden of proof shifted to the Respondent.
36. Mr. Keaton argued that public interest value outweighed private individual’s value to the documents hence they were not a forgery, and relied on Rule 5(b) of Mutunga Rules, and submitted that a Petition could not be defeated by non-joinder. He added that the Petition is filed in good faith to enforce public interest.
1 ST RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS
37. Counsel for the 1st Respondent filed submissions dated 20th February, 2026, and identified the following issues for determination:
a) Whether the Petitioner properly instituted their claim before the appropriate court and in accordance with legal procedures.
b) Whether the Petitioner has discharged the burden of proof to establish illegality, fraud or unconstitutional acquisition of the suit parcels.
c) Whether the suit parcels were lawfully acquired by the 4th, 7th, and 8th Respondents and whether the transactions complied with applicable legal requirements at the time.
d) Whether the 1st Respondent can reasonably be expected to produce records from transactions that took place in the 1980s and 1990s.
e) Whether the Petition herein raises confidentiality concerns. Whether the Petition amounts to an abuse of the court process and should therefore be dismissed with costs.
38. Counsel relied on their preliminary objection dated 8th October, 2024, which was later adopted as grounds of opposition and submitted that the Petitioner seeks redress against alleged non-payments relating to land transactions that took place between the years 1986 – 1992, which improperly invokes constitutional jurisdiction to resolve what is clearly a contractual dispute.
39. Counsel relied on the principle of constitutional avoidance as laid out in the cases of Consumer Federation of Kenya (COFEK) v Toyota Kenya Limited & 4 others (Petition No. 455 of 2018), and Moses Kiarie Kuria & 2 Others V Attorney General [2019] eKLR, that emphasizes that constitutional courts should not entertain matters that can be resolved through alternative remedies provided under statutory, administrative or common law frameworks.
40. Mr. Karumpu submitted that in the COFEK case above, the Petitioner alleged constitutional violations, particularly under Articles 35 and 46(1)(b) of the Constitution, regarding consumer rights and access to information. However, the cour
[...truncated]
a) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the 4th Respondent was obligated to remit payment of Kshs. 3,425,000.00 as consideration towards the purchase or acquisition of Land Reference Number 13287/1 (title number IR 40575) before the registration of the transfer on 3rd March, 1986 and that whereas the transfer and Grant Number 40236 purports that payment of this amount was made to the 1st Respondent, the 4th Respondent and or the 5th and 6th Respondents did not and have not made this payment to the 1st Respondent State Corporation/ Government.
b) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the 7th Respondent was obligated to remit payment of Kshs. 279,960.00 as consideration towards the purchase or acquisition of Land Reference Number 13287/2 (title number IR 41767) before registration of the transfer on 31st December, 1986 and that whereas the transfer and Grant Number 40236 purports that payment of this amount was made to the 1st Respondent, the 7th Respondent and or the 5th and 6th Respondents herein did not and have not made this payment to the 1st Respondent State Corporation/ Government.
c) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the 8th Respondent was obligated to remit payment of Kshs. 24,000.00 as consideration towards the purchase or acquisition of Land Reference Number 13287/88 (title number IR 55573) before registration of the transfer on 22nd April, 1992 and that whereas the transfer and Grant Number 40236 purports that payment of this amount was made to the 1st Respondent, the 8th Respondent and or the 5th and 6th Respondents herein did not and have not made this payment to the 1st Respondent State Corporation/ Government.
d) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the indication in the transfer instruments for the parcel of land namely L.R No. 13287/1 and Grant Number 40236 that consideration of Kshs. 3,425,000.00 was paid to the 1 Respondent by the 4th Respondent, when it was not, was intended to deceive, illegally alienate public property, is fraudulent and constitutes a gross violation of sections 11(1) and 15(1) of the Public Officer Ethics Act, 2009 and Articles 73(1)(a) and 73(2)(b) of the Constitution and the national values and principles of governance under Article 10 of the Constitution by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Respondents.
e) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the indication in the transfer instruments for the parcel of land namely L.R No. 13287/2 and Grant Number 40236 that consideration of Kshs. 279,960.00 was paid to the 1st Respondent by the 7th Respondent, when in reality it was not, was intended to deceive, illegally alienate public property, is fraudulent and constitutes a gross violation of sections 11(1) and 15(1) of the Public Officer Ethics Act 2009 and Articles 73(1)(a) and 73(2)(b) of the Constitution and the national values and principles of governance under Article 10 of the Constitution by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Respondents.
f) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the indication in the transfer instruments for the parcel of land namely L.R No. 13287/88 and Grant Number 40236 that consideration of Kshs. 24,000.00 was paid to the 1st Respondent by the 8th Respondent, when in reality it was not, was intended to deceive, illegally alienate public property, is fraudulent and constitutes a gross violation of sections 11(1) and 15(1) of the Public Officer Ethics Act, 2009 and Articles 73(1)(a) and 73(2)(b) of the Constitution and the national values and principles of governance under Article 10 of the Constitution by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Respondents.
g) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the 1st Respondent and its officers illegally aided and or abdicated their mandate and public trust in conveying interest over Land Reference Number 13287/1 (certificate of title IR 40575), Land Reference Number 13287/2 (certificate of title IR 41767) and Land Reference Number 13287/88 (certificate of title IR 55573) without payment of consideration to the 4th, 7th and 8th Respondents respectively.
h) A declaration be and is hereby issued declaring that by dint of sections 12(2) and 13(1) and (2)(d) of the Agricultural Development Corporation Act, Cap 444 the acquisition of and registration of the transfer for the parcel of land, namely, Land Reference Number 13287/1 (title number IR 40575) in favour of the 4th Respondent on 3rd March, 1986 without payment of Kshs. 3,425,000.00 to the 1st Respondent is illegal, null and void.
i) A declaration be and is hereby issued declaring that by dint of sections 12(2) and 13(1) and (2)(d) of the Agricultural Development Corporation Act, Cap 444, the acquisition of and registration of the transfer for the parcel of land, namely, Land Reference Number 13287/2 (title number IR 41767) in favour of the 7th Respondent on 21st December, 1986 from the 1st Respondent without payment of Kshs. 279,960.00 to the 1st Respondent is illegal, null and void.
j) A declaration be and is hereby issued declaring that by dint of sections 12(2) and 13(1) and (2)(d) of the Agricultural Development Corporation Act, Cap 444, the acquisition of and registration of the transfer for the parcel of land, namely, Land Reference Number 13287/88 (title number IR 55573) in favour of the 8th Respondent on 22nd April, 1992 from the 1st Respondent without payment of Kshs. 24,000.00 to the 1st Respondent is illegal, null and void.
k) A declaration be and is hereby issued declaring that: -
a) The acquisition of Land Reference Number 13287/1 from the 1" Respondent by the 4th Respondent and his registration as the proprietor thereof on 3rd March, 1986 is tainted by manifest violations of the national values and principles of rule of law, good governance, integrity, transparency and accountability under Articles 10(2)(a) and (c) of the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional, illegal, null and void.
b) The acquisition of Land Reference Number 13287/2 from the 1st Respondent by the 7th Respondent and his registration as the proprietor thereof on 31st December, 1986 is tainted by manifest violations of the national values and principles of rule of law, good governance, integrity, transparency and accountability under Articles 10(2)(a) and (c) of the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional, illegal, null and void.
c) The acquisition of Land Reference Number 13287/88 from the 1st Respondent by the 8th Respondent and his registration as the proprietor thereof on 22nd April, 1992 is tainted by manifest violations of the national values and principles of rule of law, good governance, integrity, transparency and accountability under Articles 10(2)(a) and (c) of the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional, illegal, null and void.
l) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the 4th Respondent having acquired the title over L.R No. 13287/1 in breach of sections 12(2) and 13(1) and (2)(d) of the Agricultural Development Corporation Act, Cap 444 and the constitutional values of rule of law, good governance, integrity and transparency, he lacked capacity to pass good title to the 5th and 6th Respondents.
m) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the 7 Respondent having acquired the title over L.R No. 13287/2 in breach of sections 12(2) and 13(1) and (2)(d) of the Agricultural Development Corporation Act, Cap 444 and the constitutional values of rule of law, good governance, integrity and transparency, he lacked capacity to pass good title to the 5th and 6th Respondents.
n) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the 8th Respondent having acquired the title over L.R No. 13287/88 in breach of sections 12(2) and 13(1) and (2)(d) of the Agricultural Development Corporation Act, Cap 444 and the constitutional values of rule of law, good governance, integrity and transparency, he lacked capacity to pass good title to the 6th Respondent.
o) A declaration be and is hereby issued declaring that neither the 6th Respondent, Sian Enterprises Limited nor its predecessors in title have any valid, legal or recognizable interest over the properties known as Land Reference Number 13287/1 (certificate of title IR 4075 Land Reference Number 13287/2 (certificate of title IR 41767) and Land Number 13287/88 (certificate of title IR 55573) and any interest that they hold is invalid, illegal, null and void.
p) A mandatory injunction be and is hereby issued compelling the Chief Land Registrar, the 3rd Respondent in the petition to annul, revoke and cancel any alleged land ownership documents held by the 6th Respondent and its predecessors in title in connection with the properties known as I.and Reference Number 13287/1 (certificate of title [IR 40575), Land Reference Number 13287/2 (certificate of title IR 41767) and Land Reference Number 13287/88 (certificate of title IR 55573) and revert and vest ownership and interest thereof on the 1 Respondent, the Agricultural Development Corporation herein within 7 days of the judgment hereof.
q) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the 1st Respondent is entitled to ownership, use and possession of the properties known as Land Reference Number 13287/1 (certificate of title IR 40575), Land Reference Number 13287/2 (certificate of title IR 41767) and Land Reference Number 13287/88 (certificate of title IR 55573) to the exclusion of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Respondents as well as their agents, servants and employees.
r) A permanent injunction against the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Respondents be and is hereby issued prohibiting them, whether by themselves, their agents or servants from entering upon, remaining upon, trespassing onto, transferring, occupying, leasing, charging, alienating, assigning or in any manner whatsoever continuing to use, plough, lease or development the properties known as Land Reference Number 13287/1 (certificate of title IR 40575), Land Reference Number 13287/2 (certificate of title IR 41767) and Land Reference Number 13287/88 (certificate of title IR 55573) situated at Ngata in Nakuru City County within 7 days of the judgment herein, in default, an eviction order does issue and the Officer Commanding Station, Menengai Police Station or any other nearest police station do ensure compliance and or provide security during eviction.
s) In the alternative to prayers (xvi), (xvii) and (xviii) above, a mandatory order of injunction be and is hereby issued compelling the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Respondents to jointly and or severally: -
a) Pay the 1st Respondent State Corporation the sum of Kenya Shillings Ten Billion Two Hundred and Thirty Million Only (Kshs. 10,230,000,000.00), being the current market price for the parcel of land namely L.R No. 13287/1 as the purchase price and a condition precedent to validation of the interest within 30 days of the judgment herein in default of which the reliefs under prayers (xvi), (xvii) and (xviii) should take effect.
b) Pay the 1st Respondent State Corporation the sum of Kenya Shillings Three Billion Four Hundred and Ninety-Five Million Only (Kshs. 3,495,000,000.00), being the market price for the parcel of land namely LR No. 13287/2 as the purchase price and a condition precedent to validation of the interest within 30 days of the judgment herein in default of which the reliefs under prayers (xvi), (xvii) and (xviii) should take effect.
c) Pay the 1st Respondent State Corporation the sum of Kenya Shillings Three Hundred Million Only (Kshs. 300,000,000.00), being the current market price for the parcel of land namely L.R No. 13287/88 as the purchase price and a condition precedent to validation of the interest within 30 days of the judgment herein in default of which the reliefs under prayers (xvi), (xvii) and (xviii) should take effect.
t) A declaration be and is hereby issued that in failing to provide the Petitioner with information according to the application or request for information dated 5th August, 2024 in connection to the alienation of the properties known as Land Reference Number 13287 1 (certificate of title [IR 40575), Land Reference Number 13287/2 (certificate of title IR 41767) and Land Reference Number 13287/88 (certificate of title IR 55573), the 1st Respondent herein has breached the Petitioner’s right to access information under Articles 35 (1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution and section 4 of the Access to Information Act, 2016.
u) An award for mesne profits jointly and severally payable to the 1st Respondent by the: -
a) 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents in connection with their illegal occupation of L.R No. 13287/1.
b) 7th, 5th and 6th Respondents in connection with their illegal occupation of L.R No. 13287/2.
c) 5th and 8th Respondents in connection with their illegal occupation of L.R No. 13287/88.
v) An order for costs of this petition.
2. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents filed grounds of opposition dated 11th October 2024, and stated that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any act or omission by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents in relation to the suit parcels which constitute a violation of fundamental rights and freedoms in the Constitution.
3. The Respondents further stated that the Petitioner has filed an action for recovery of land in the form of a Petition in an attempt to avoid or circumvent the statutory limitation of 12 years as provided for by the Limitation of Actions Act Cap 22 Laws of Kenya, and urged the Court to dismiss the Petition with costs.
4. The 4th Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 15th November 2024, by Ambassador Major General (Rtd) JAMES MUTUA MULINGE, who deponed that he is one of the Administrators of the estate of the late General Mulinge.
5. He deponed that this matter came to his attention vide a newspaper advertisement dated 24th September 2024 at page 4 of Daily Nation, and was surprised to find out that the Petitioner had sought leave to effect substituted service upon the 2nd and 3rd Respondents vide a newspaper advertisement, the prayer of which the court declined. That to his consternation the same was prominently reported on page 10 of the Daily Nation covering more than half a page the next day on 15th October 2024.
6. The 4th Respondent contended that the publication showed the Petitioner’s real intention was to publicly humiliate the Respondents with claims that he cannot substantiate. Further that the Petition is an abuse of court process as it seeks to recover funds on behalf of the 1st Respondent, which is a statutory body capable of suing and being sued in its name.
7. The Respondent further deponed that the Petitioner’s allegation that his late father caused the suit property to be registered in his name without paying the consideration with a fraudulent common intention is not supported by any evidence, hence preposterous and defamatory.
8. The 4th Respondent averred that the Petitioner’s attached valuation report stated that there is no evidence to show that the subject property was irregularly or illegally acquired and the Valuer confirmed that the property does not fall under the category of public purpose or the Ndungu Land Report. He urged the Court to dismiss the Petition with costs.
9. The 5th, 6th and 8th Respondents, in opposition to the Petition, filed their replying affidavit sworn on 11th October, 2024, by the 8th Respondent, where he averred that the Petition was frivolous, an abuse of court process and a political and personal vendetta.
10. He averred that the Petitioner has disguised a purely commercial and civil claim as a constitutional issue, and the Petitioner failed to demonstrate what right has been violated and manifestation of that contravention as required in a constitutional Petition.
11. The 8th Respondent averred that the Petitioner sought declarations of illegal property transfers and unpaid consideration, which are issues that belong in a commercial court and not a constitutional one.
12. He averred that the Petition attempts to frame the lawsuit as a public interest litigation and further that the public did not have a pecuniary stake in the 1st Respondent’s sale of agricultural land. He added that if there were any financial losses due to unpaid consideration, that loss would be suffered exclusively by the 1st Respondent, which has the legal capacity to sue on its own behalf, rather than the public.
13. The 8th Respondent further averred that the 1st Respondent entered into independent, private contracts for the sale of the suit properties (L.R. Nos. 13287/1, 13287/2, and 13287/88) with the 4th and 7th Respondents, and him. He also stated that the Petitioner was never a party to these contracts, which were not designed to confer any benefit upon him; therefore, the Petitioner fundamentally lacked the legal standing to enforce the contracts or to demand payment on behalf of the 1st Respondent. He added that it was peculiar that the Petitioner demanded payments, which the 1st Respondent itself has not demanded.
14. The 8th Respondent contended that the Petitioner breached the Respondents’ statutory privacy rights under Article 31 of the Constitution (Right to Privacy) and Section 25 of the Data Protection Act by demanding access to the private allocation letters, title deeds, ownership documents and statements of accounts.
15. The 8th Respondent further averred that the 1st Respondent was specifically mandated to sell the subdivided portions of land on a willing buyer willing seller basis following directives from the late President Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi, which sale targeted members of the Armed Forces such as Major Generals and Constables. The 8th Respondent stated that his role at the time of acquisition of the suit land was strictly that of a Personal Assistant to the late President and not a Personal Secretary. He denied having the power or influence to manipulate the actions of independent Military Generals or the 1st Respondent regarding land allotments.
16. The 8th Respondent denied the Petitioner’s claim that the land was acquired without payment of the consideration of Kshs. 3,425,000/ Kshs. 279,960/ and Kshs. 24,000/. He averred that the official transfer documents explicitly acknowledged receipt of the purchase price and effectively and legally passed proprietary interest to him.
17. In conclusion, the 8th Respondent urged the court to apply the principle of constitutional avoidance and find that the Petition did not meet the constitutional threshold as it offended the doctrine of privity of contract and that it was a commercial claim disguised as a constitutional Petition.
18. The parties canvassed the Petition by way of written submissions, which were duly filed, and highlighted on 22nd April 2026.
PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS
19. Counsel for the Petitioner filed submissions dated 20th February, 2026, and identified the following issues for determination;
a) Whether the Petition is vague, meets the threshold for a public interest litigation under the Constitution, and is properly before this Court.
b) Whether L.R Nos. 13287/1, 13287/2 and 13287/88 were illegally, unprocedurally, and fraudulently acquired.
c) Whether the 6th Respondent can be deemed an "Innocent Purchaser for Value without Notice".
d) Whether the 1st Respondent has violated the Petitioner’s right to access to information.
e) What reliefs should issue.
20. On the first issue as to whether the Petition meets the threshold for a public interest litigation under the Constitution, counsel submitted that the Petition is brought pursuant to Articles 22 and 258 of the Constitution, which expressly grant every person the right to institute proceedings claiming that the Constitution has been contravened or is threatened with contravention. Counsel further cited Article 258(1), which permits any person to institute proceedings in the public interest without demonstrating personal injury or proprietary interest.
21. It was counsel’s submission that the Petition concerns alleged unlawful alienation of public land by high-ranking public officials in contravention of the Constitution, and public land being a public good, its protection is thus inherently a matter of public interest capable of being litigated by any citizen. Counsel further submitted that the Petition also concerns the abdication of responsibilities and duties under the Constitution, which undermines governance, accountability, and the protection of public resources, that can be litigated by any citizen, and relied on the case of Kinyanjui V Attorney General & another [2016] KEHC 5104 (KLR).
22. Mr. Keaton submitted that the Petitioner has the locus standi and has met the threshold as per the Anita Karimi Case . Counsel submitted that the Petitioner has expressly identified the constitutional provisions violated, including Articles 10, 35, 40(6), 73, and 201 of the Constitution; has clearly demonstrated the manner of violation, namely the fraudulent transfer of public land from the Agricultural Development Corporation without payment of consideration as indicated in the transfer instruments; provided detailed particulars including the specific parcels of land involved, namely L.R. Nos. 13287/1, 13287/2, and 13287/88, the chronology of transfers, the parties involved in the impugned transactions, and the manner in which the alleged illegality was perpetuated through subsequent transfers.
23. It was counsel’s submission that the 5th, 6th and 8th Respondents have filed a detailed Replying Affidavit and submissions addressing their acquisition, ownership, and legality of the suit properties, hence cannot assert that the Petition is vague. Counsel submitted that courts have cautioned against a rigid and technical application of the Anarita Karimi principle and emphasized that constitutional litigation should not be defeated by procedural formalism where the pleadings disclose a substantive constitutional controversy and relied on the case of Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance V Attorney General & 2 Others, Petition 229 of 2012.
24. On the Respondent’s contention that the Petition involves private contracts, between ADC and the purchasers, counsel argued that the 1st Respondent, the Agricultural Development Corporation (“ADC”) is a Government parastatal established under the Agricultural Development Corporation Act, Cap 444, a statutory body established for and on behalf of the people of Kenya, and is required to be prudent in managing the resources that belong to them. Further, the doctrine of privity of contract generally prevents third parties from enforcing a contract, but it cannot be used to hide fraudulent transactions by public bodies from constitutional scrutiny, and relied on the case of Ms. Priscilla Nyokabi Kanyua vs. Attorney General & Interim Independent Electoral Commission Nairobi HCCP No. 1 of 2010.
25. Mr. Keaton further submitted that the Petitioner is not seeking to enforce a contract, but to set aside an unconstitutional and fraudulent alienation of public land, which was sold without payment of consideration, hence should be declared null and void. Counsel relied on the Petitioner’s supplementary affidavit sworn on 18th October, 2024, where the annexed letters acknowledged that they never paid Kshs. 3million.
26. On the issue as to whether the suit properties were lawfully alienated, counsel submitted that the Petitioner has demonstrated, through documentary correspondence from the 1st Respondent, that no such payments were ever received from the original allottees, in respect of L.R. No. 13287/1, to the late General Jackson Mulinge, which was registered on 3rd March 1986, at a stated consideration of Kshs. 3,425,000.00. Similarly, in respect of L.R. Nos. 13287/2, 13287/88, transferred on 31st December 1986, and 24th April 1992, at a consideration of Kshs. 279,960.00, and Kshs. 24,000.00, respectively.
27. Counsel submitted that the legal consequence of non-payment of consideration was that no valid interest was conferred on the original allottees, which they could pass to the 5th and 6th Respondents, and cited the case of Torino Enterprises Limited V Attorney General (Petition 5 (E006) of 2022) [2023] KESC 79 (KLR).
28. He further submitted that there were transfers effected to the Respondent that were contrary to the conditions and the law, and stated that the 1st Respondent had power to sell or alienate the properties but it had to do so in accordance with the law. Counsel relied on the case of Kipkebut Kemboi V Richard Macharia & 2 others [2025] KECA 1665 (KLR), and submitted that the alienation of L.R. Nos. 13287/1, 13287/2 and 13287/88 was unlawful, unconstitutional, and contrary to statute.
29. Mr. Keaton also submitted that they had attached the Respondent’s CR 12, which were companies owned by the 8th Respondent, hence could not claim to be bona fide purchasers since the initial considerations were never paid. He relied on the cases of Dina Management Ltd V County Government of Mombasa & 5 others (Petition 8 (E010) of 2021) [2023] KESC 30 (KLR) and Katende V Haridar & Company Ltd [2008] 2 EA 173.
30. According to counsel, the Petitioner had requested material information which was never provided, and relied on Article 35(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution and section 4(1) of the Access to Information Act, 2016, which provide that every citizen has the right to access information held by the state and information held by another person and required for the exercise or protection of any right or fundamental freedom. Counsel further cited the case of Katiba Institute V Presidents Delivery Unit & 3 others [2017] KEHC 2183 (KLR).
31. He submitted that the Petitioner requested for the letters of application for allocation of L.R Nos 13287/1, 13287/2 and 13287/88, the 1st Respondent’s allocation letters for purposes of purchase of L.R Nos. 13287/1, 13287/2 and 13287/88, correspondence relating to non-payment of the purchase price for L.R Nos 13287/1, 13287/2 and 13287/88, Titles and ownership documents for LR No.s13287/1, 13287/2 and 13287/88, statement of account in respect to L.R Nos 13287/1, 13287/2 and 13287/88, which information would have shown that L.R Nos. 13287/1, 13287/2 and 13287/88 were illegally alienated. Counsel stated that to date, the 1st Respondent has refused and/or neglected to provide the Petitioner with the requested information.
32. On 22nd April 2026, counsel for the Petitioner highlighted the submissions and reiterated the issues for determination in the Petition and emphasized that the Petitioner has met the threshold as laid down in the Anarita Karimi case and rule 10(3) of the Mutunga Rules.
33. Counsel further submitted that the Respondents cannot rely on the doctrine of bona fide purchaser as the consideration was never paid, hence the properties were illegally alienated. Counsel therefore urged the court to allow the Petition as prayed.
34. In response to the Respondents' submission, counsel submitted that the doctrine of adverse possession did not apply in the instant case and that the Petitioner had the locus standi; further that the valuation was done by a reputable firm.
35. Additionally, counsel submitted that the Petitioner was not seeking to enforce a contractual dispute but to set aside an unconstitutional alienation of public land, that the Petitioner was not a party to a land sale agreement, and that the burden of proof shifted to the Respondent.
36. Mr. Keaton argued that public interest value outweighed private individual’s value to the documents hence they were not a forgery, and relied on Rule 5(b) of Mutunga Rules, and submitted that a Petition could not be defeated by non-joinder. He added that the Petition is filed in good faith to enforce public interest.
1 ST RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS
37. Counsel for the 1st Respondent filed submissions dated 20th February, 2026, and identified the following issues for determination:
a) Whether the Petitioner properly instituted their claim before the appropriate court and in accordance with legal procedures.
b) Whether the Petitioner has discharged the burden of proof to establish illegality, fraud or unconstitutional acquisition of the suit parcels.
c) Whether the suit parcels were lawfully acquired by the 4th, 7th, and 8th Respondents and whether the transactions complied with applicable legal requirements at the time.
d) Whether the 1st Respondent can reasonably be expected to produce records from transactions that took place in the 1980s and 1990s.
e) Whether the Petition herein raises confidentiality concerns. Whether the Petition amounts to an abuse of the court process and should therefore be dismissed with costs.
38. Counsel relied on their preliminary objection dated 8th October, 2024, which was later adopted as grounds of opposition and submitted that the Petitioner seeks redress against alleged non-payments relating to land transactions that took place between the years 1986 – 1992, which improperly invokes constitutional jurisdiction to resolve what is clearly a contractual dispute.
39. Counsel relied on the principle of constitutional avoidance as laid out in the cases of Consumer Federation of Kenya (COFEK) v Toyota Kenya Limited & 4 others (Petition No. 455 of 2018), and Moses Kiarie Kuria & 2 Others V Attorney General [2019] eKLR, that emphasizes that constitutional courts should not entertain matters that can be resolved through alternative remedies provided under statutory, administrative or common law frameworks.
40. Mr. Karumpu submitted that in the COFEK case above, the Petitioner alleged constitutional violations, particularly under Articles 35 and 46(1)(b) of the Constitution, regarding consumer rights and access to information. However, the cour
[...truncated]