Musa Bandari & 2 others v Kenya Railways Corporation & 3 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Mombasa
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
E. K. Ogola
Judgment Date
October 15, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Musa Bandari & 2 others v Kenya Railways Corporation & 3 others [2020] eKLR. Discover key insights and legal implications from this significant judgment.

Case Brief: Musa Bandari & 2 others v Kenya Railways Corporation & 3 others [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Musa Bandari & Others v. Kenya Railways Corporation & Others
- Case Number: Petition No. 57 of 2016
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Mombasa, Constitutional & Judicial Review Division
- Date Delivered: October 15, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): E. K. Ogola
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues in this case include:
- Whether the Petitioners' rights under Articles 28, 43, and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya were violated by the Respondents.
- Whether the Petitioners are entitled to compensation for loss of livelihood due to the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) project.
- Whether the Petitioners have adequately proved their claims and the existence of a cause of action.

3. Facts of the Case:
The Petitioners, licensed fishermen operating from the Mtongwe Landing Site, filed this petition against the Kenya Railways Corporation and other governmental bodies following the construction of SGR facilities that rendered them jobless. The construction necessitated the relocation of fishermen, and the Petitioners claimed that they were denied compensation despite being promised a verification exercise to identify affected individuals. They alleged that the Respondents violated their rights by not following due process and excluding them from the compensation list.

4. Procedural History:
The case progressed through the High Court, where the Petitioners filed an amended petition on May 15, 2017, seeking declarations of rights violations and compensation. The Respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the Petitioners were not recognized members of the Beach Management Unit (BMU) and therefore not entitled to compensation. The court conducted a hearing where testimonies were presented, and both parties made submissions regarding the evidence and rights involved.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered relevant constitutional provisions, particularly Articles 28 (human dignity), 43 (economic and social rights), and 47 (right to fair administrative action) of the Constitution of Kenya.
- Case Law: The court referenced previous cases, including *Anarita Karimi Njeru v. The Republic* and *Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v. AG*, to establish the standards for constitutional petitions and the burden of proof required to substantiate claims of rights violations.
- Application: The court found that the Petitioners failed to prove their claims adequately. The 1st and 3rd Petitioners could not demonstrate they were licensed fishermen at the time of the verification process, while the 2nd Petitioner did prove his status. The court determined that the Respondents had violated the 1st and 2nd Petitioners' rights to fair administrative action by failing to provide reasons for their exclusion from compensation.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the 2nd Petitioner, declaring that he was entitled to compensation due to the violation of his rights. The court ordered the 1st and 2nd Respondents to compensate the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Petitioners for their loss of livelihood, establishing a precedent for the protection of fishermen's rights in similar situations.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the judgment.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya ruled that the Petitioners' rights under the Constitution were violated due to the failure to provide fair administrative action regarding compensation for loss of livelihood caused by the SGR project. The court ordered compensation for the 2nd Petitioner, highlighting the importance of due process and the rights of affected individuals in governmental projects. This case underscores the necessity for transparency and fairness in administrative actions impacting citizens' livelihoods.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Musa-Bandari--2-others-v-Kenya-Railways-Corporation--3-others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1921_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries