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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
