Abstract:
A leading criticism of the Mitu-Bell Welfare Society decision in the Supreme Court of Kenya is
that
it
fell
short of
achieving the transformative
effects
expected similar to South Africa’s
Irene
Grootboom. One such
critique has been
provided by Ian Mwiti Mathenge in his paper which this
article
responds to
by
asserting
that
the Court addressed relevant issues
to Kenya’s jurisprudential needs.
Specifically, the Court clearly affirmed
evictees’ rights to seek redress
including compensation, adequate notice,
dignified treatment and even the provision of alternative land for resettlement.
The analysis of the case also
acknowledges the Court’s interpretation on
the place of international law in Kenya, and areas for future research
and
development.
