Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2019] KEELC 2661 (KLR)

James Kamau & 7 others v County Government of Kiambu [2019] KEELC 2661 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
18 June 2019
1,330 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court ruled that shop owners can sue Kiambu County directly over demolition notices, without first going through statutory appeals.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiffs sued the County Government of Kiambu seeking, among other orders, to compel the Defendant to issue permits and approvals to operate business shops on Kahawa Sukari Plots No.3113, 297, 3114, 1194, 3096, 295, 3132 and LR.No.3/536, and simultaneously sought injunctive relief restraining the Defendant from encroaching on structures on those plots. The Defendant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection contending that the court lacked jurisdiction because the Physical Planning Act channels grievances against decisions of the Director of Physical Planning to the Liaison Committee, with appeal to the National Liaison Committee and then the High Court, and that the Plaintiffs had failed to exhaust that statutory dispute resolution mechanism, rendering the suit premature and an abuse of process. The court first confirmed that the objection met the Mukisa Biscuits definition of a preliminary objection, being a pure point of law on jurisdiction. On the merits of the objection, the court found that the Plaintiffs were not challenging a decision of the Director of Physical Planning and had made no application to the Director that could found an appeal; rather, they were challenging the County Government's enforcement notices of 18th December 2018 directing them to remove structures and restore the plots. Relying on Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, the court held that it had original jurisdiction over the legality of administrative decisions made by the County Government. The preliminary objection was dismissed entirely with costs to the Plaintiffs. Invoking Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Rule 32 of the ELC Practice Directions, the court ordered maintenance of the status quo, restraining the Defendant from encroaching on, interfering with or demolishing the structures pending determination of the suit, and gave directions for filing of pleadings and compliance with Order 11.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the notice raised a true preliminary objection

Holding

The objection, being a challenge to jurisdiction, met the Mukisa Biscuits description of a preliminary objection

Reasoning

Applying the Mukisa Biscuits test, the court held that jurisdiction is a point of law which, if decided against the court, requires it to down its tools and end the matter at the preliminary stage, without ascertaining facts from outside the pleadings. The objection therefore qualified as a proper preliminary objection and had to be determined first.

p. 2
02

Whether the Plaintiffs were obliged to exhaust the appeal mechanism under the Physical Planning Act

Holding

The exhaustion argument failed because the Plaintiffs were not challenging a decision of the Director of Physical Planning and had made no application attracting such an appeal

Reasoning

The Defendant contended that any person aggrieved by a decision of the Director must first appeal to the Liaison Committee under the Physical Planning Act. The court found the Plaintiffs were instead challenging the County Government's enforcement notices issued on 18th December 2018 directing removal of structures, and had made no application to the Director which could found an appeal. The dispute concerned the legality of a county administrative decision, over which the court has original jurisdiction under Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act.

p. 2
03

Whether the court should preserve the status quo pending trial

Holding

The court invoked its inherent powers and Rule 32 of the ELC Practice Directions to order maintenance of the status quo

Reasoning

Relying on Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Rule 32 of the ELC Practice Directions, the court held it had inherent powers to make orders necessary to meet the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. Noting its duty under Sections 1A and 1B to facilitate the just, expeditious and proportionate determination of matters, it directed that interlocutory applications be disposed of and the main suit proceed, with the status quo maintained pending hearing.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection consists of a point of law which, if argued as a preliminary point, may dispose of the suit
  • Where a court finds it has no jurisdiction, it must down its tools and bring the matter to an end at the preliminary stage
  • The Environment and Land Court has original jurisdiction over cases dealing with the legality of administrative decisions made by a County Government

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection is dismissed entirely with costs to the Plaintiffs
  2. 2.Status quo to be maintained: the Defendant is restrained from encroaching, interfering with or demolishing structures built on Kahawa Sukari, Plots No.3113, 297, 3114, 1194, 3096, 295, 3132 and LR.No.3/536 pending the hearing and determination of the suit
  3. 3.Plaintiffs to take out summons within 14 days and serve upon the Defendant
  4. 4.Defendant to file its Defence within 14 days after service; Plaintiffs to Reply within 7 days
  5. 5.Parties to comply with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules within 30 days after close of pleadings, and a date to be taken for Pre-trial Directions before the Deputy Registrar

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Physical Planning ActSections 7, 10, 13, 15
  • Environment & Land Court ActSection 13
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A
  • Environment & Land Court Practice DirectionsRule 32
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 11

Cases cited (2)

  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Limited
    (1969) EA 696
  • Quick Enterprises Ltd v Kenya Railways Corporation
    Kisumu HCCC No.22 of 1999
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Rule 32 of the Environment & Land Court Practice Directions

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "James Kamau & 7 others v County Government of Kiambu [2019] KEELC 2661 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/2661/eng@2019-06-18

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.