Municipal Council Of Nakuru v Reliable Concrete Works Limited [2014] KECA 300 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal upheld the valuation court system, ruling property owners challenging rates must provide real evidence of bias, not just suspicion.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the valuation court is an adjudicating authority under Section 77(9) of the former Constitution
It is an adjudicating authority exercising quasi-judicial powers; its proceedings are judicial in nature.
Although not a court under Sections 60 or 65 of the former Constitution, the valuation court hears and determines objections to the valuation roll. Parties may be heard in person or by advocate, witnesses may be examined on oath, sittings are public, appeals lie to the High Court, and questions of law may be reserved by way of case stated. Applying the Supreme Court's dictum in Communications Commission of Kenya, determinations of a non-judicial tribunal acting in a quasi-judicial capacity are entitled to the same effect as judicial determinations.
Whether the valuation court determines civil rights and obligations and affects property rights under Section 75
Its determinations impose a civil obligation to pay rates, which attaches in rem to the rateable property, and imposition and recovery of rates is not a violation of Section 75.
Unpaid rates are recoverable as a civil debt and constitute a charge on the land under Sections 17 and 19 of the Rating Act. The determination of the rate payable is a determination in rem attaching to the property. Section 75(6)(a) of the former Constitution excepts nothing done under authority of any law for taking possession of property in satisfaction of any rate or impost, and nothing done in execution of a judgment or order of a court in proceedings for determination of civil rights or obligations.
Whether the appointment and remuneration of valuation court members by the local authority offends independence and impartiality under Section 77(9)
It does not per se; independence requires a combination of safeguards and a factual basis for any reasonable apprehension of bias, none of which was tendered.
Adopting Supreme Court dicta, no single safeguard singly guarantees independence; it takes a combination of safeguards and the fortitude of office holders. The respondent tendered no evidence of bias or possibility of bias. The requirement of a first-class magistrate or advocate of five years standing is itself a legislative intervention aimed at ensuring competence and independence. Declaring the tribunal unconstitutional would create a legal vacuum in the framework for handling valuation roll objections, contrary to public interest.
Legal principles established
#- A valuation court established under Section 12 of the Valuation for Rating Act is an adjudicating authority exercising quasi-judicial powers within the meaning of Section 77(9) of the former Constitution.
- The manner of appointment and remuneration of members of a tribunal should not per se be a ground for determining absence of independence and impartiality; no single safeguard guarantees independence.
- A party alleging bias or lack of independence must tender evidence establishing a reasonable factual basis; mere apprehension and speculation is not enough.
- Imposition and recovery of rates on rateable property is not a violation of the right to protection of private property under Section 75 of the former Constitution.
Court orders
#- 1.Set aside the Ruling of the High Court dated and delivered on 30th June 2009
- 2.Set aside all consequential orders arising from that Ruling
- 3.Award costs of the appeal and of the proceedings in the High Court to the appellant
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nakuru
- H.C. Petition No. 3 of 2009
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from the High Court exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Section 84(1) of the former Constitution; appeal as of right on facts and law
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Shah & 22 Others & 22 others v Municipal Council of Nakuru & 3 others (Civil Appeal 5 of 2020) [2025] KECA 566 (KLR)[2025] KECA 566 (KLR)28 Mar 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Municipal Council Of Nakuru v Reliable Concrete Works Limited [2014] KECA 300 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Civil Appeal No. 192 of 2009. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2014/300/eng@2014-10-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.