Judgment-High Court Petition No 164 of 2011 - Hakijamii

elong to the petitioners but to the 2 nd respondent; that the 2 nd respondentwas under an obligation, in performing its statutory duty under the CivilAviation Act, to ensure air safety by removing the informal settlementwhich was on a flight path; that the demolitions was not carried out by the2 nd respondent but by the state in order to remove the threat posed by thevillage given the ongoing war in Somalia; and that the petitioners areclaiming social economic rights which are progressive and cannot begranted at once.• In determining this matter, and taking into account the respectivearguments of the parties set out above, I believe I am called upon toaddress my mind to three main issues:• What rights, if any, do the petitioners have over thesubject property?• If the answer to i) above is in the negative, was theireviction and the demolition of their houses a Violation oftheir Rights under the Constitution?• If the answer to ii) above is in the positive, what reliefshould the court grant to the petitioners?• Rights over the Subject Property• The petitioners allege violation of their right under Article 40, whichprovides as follows:40. (1) Subject to Article 65, every person has the right, eitherindividually or in association with others, to acquire and ownproperty––(a) of any description; and(b) in any part of Kenya.