The High Court has awarded former Taveta Member of Parliament Basil Criticos a total of Kshs 30 million after finding that the government violated his constitutional right to property.
In its judgment, the court declared that Criticos was deprived of his rights contrary to Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which guarantees every person the right to acquire and own property. The court awarded Kshs 20 million in general damages for the constitutional breach and a further Kshs 10 million as exemplary and aggravated damages against the Respondents.
Criticos had moved to court claiming that between 1998 and 2000, thousands of people invaded his sisal estates in Taveta and that state officials failed to remove them despite repeated requests and existing court orders. He further alleged that after protesting the invasions, he was dismissed from his position as Assistant Minister for Roads and Public Works.
According to the petition, his sisal factory and approximately 4,400 acres of sisal were burnt between 1998 and 1999, leading to significant financial losses. He told the court that about 1,600 employees lost their jobs, while thousands of casual workers were rendered destitute. He also claimed he was forced to flee the county due to insecurity.
Criticos argued that in 1991 he sold 23,400 acres to the Settlement Fund Trustees to facilitate the resettlement of squatters. However, he contended that the State failed to relocate the squatters to the designated land. Instead, various government agencies allegedly facilitated occupation of his charged property by connecting electricity, constructing roads, rehabilitating canals and installing water pipelines through Constituency Development Fund projects.
The court heard that orders issued in 2005 and 2006 directing the removal of installations on the land were not complied with. Criticos further claimed that police officers failed to enforce the orders even after being served and provided with lists of the alleged squatters.
In his petition, Criticos sought compensation of Kshs 100 million, arguing that due to the government’s actions he was unable to service his debts, which escalated because of accrued interest. He told the court that a Kshs 100 million loan was to be repaid from proceeds of subdivided land, but he had to obtain a court order to compel the Land Control Board to approve the subdivision.
He also sought an order compelling the Government Valuer to conduct a valuation of Land Reference Numbers 6731 and 6732, stating that he lacked the financial capacity to commission a private valuation.
In its determination, the court emphasized that constitutional remedies are primarily vindicatory rather than punitive, intended to affirm rights and deter future violations. While declining to grant the full Kshs 100 million sought, the court held that an award of Kshs 20 million in general damages and Kshs 10 million in exemplary damages was appropriate in the circumstances.
The court further noted that the Respondents failed to file any response to the petition or rebut the factual evidence presented. No affidavits were filed to challenge the allegations, nor were written explanations provided to justify the actions complained of. The judge held that failure to rebut serious constitutional allegations amounted to an admission of the facts as presented.
