Mbogo v. Shah marks the highest court's interpretation of the 1978 Constitution. It also illustrates the role of courts in protecting the rights of citizens. The case concerned a dispute concerning the powers of a local council. In its judgment, the court reinforced the need for laws to be proportionate to protect public health and safety as well as private property. The case also highlighted that courts have a responsibility to interpret laws in favor of the people they affect.
The plaintiff in this case was a farmer who lived in Mbogo village in western Kenya. On his farm, the plaintiff possessed two water wells that he used to grow vegetables. In 1966, the local council constructed a water well on its parcel of land without obtaining the necessary approvals or permits. When this unauthorized well began to displace the plaintiff's supply, he brought an action against the local council and won his case in court. However, when the plaintiff attempted to secure payment from the council, he found that he lacked legal standing to do so under English common law.
After this victory, Mbogo brought another action against Shah before the High Court of Kenya. As part of his argument, Mbogo presented a statute- which stated that 'all laws must be just and practicable' and must not restrict civil liberties. Additionally, he cited a research paper from Professor Githongo to support his claim that laws should be proportional. Both arguments supported his position that his unauthorized well had adversely affected his well's productivity. Therefore, he believed that further depletion of his well was imminent if no action was taken by government officials.
While discussing these points with Shah at an interview session, Mbogo realized that he had not adequately clarified his position regarding consultation with the public and laws proportionate to protection of civil liberties. According to Professor Githongo, any law that impinges on citizen rights should be discussed with citizens before it is passed by parliament. Therefore, before passing new laws, parliament should first consult with the people and receive their input on proposed legislation. In addition, all government actions should respect and protect citizen rights against encroachment by corporations or other private entities.
During this same interview session, Shah outlined some legal principles he believed were relevant to this case. First, in every constitutional democracy under God , parliament is supreme in enacting laws for implementation within its jurisdiction. Since Mbogo lived in western Kenya where local councils are responsible for distributing water among villages, Shah believed that council authorities were accountable to parliament under both local and national law. Since Shah served as deputy mayor of Kakispell town council from 1993 to 1997, he was presumably familiar with Kakispellian law and procedures for submitting proposed legislation.
Based on these legal considerations, Mbogo made three key arguments in his final written submission to the court. He first argued that government officials must consult with citizens before passing any new laws that may adversely affect them. Second, since no consultation occurred concerning water development on council land without proper permits, Mbogo argued that this lack of consultation should impact Shah's ability to hold office as deputy mayor of Kakispell town council. In addition, since no consultation occurred concerning corporate encroachment on agricultural land without proper permits, Mbogo argued that Shah's actions should also be investigated under criminal law by national and international agencies against corporate agitators promoting unsuitable food products for human consumption or animal feeding purposes .
Although Mbogo prevailed on all points at trial and won his suit against Shah - due to section 15(3) - both men now hold different views regarding legislative consultation with citizens and protection of citizen rights against corporate encroachment . To that end - as well as resolving future disputes - both government officials and private citizens should keep these principles in mind whenever governmental or corporate action adversely affects citizen rights .