Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedJudicial Review Chamber Summons application dated 15th August, 2018· [2020] KEELC 548 (KLR)

Scorpion Properties Limited v Director of Planning, Compliance & Enforcement Nairobi City County & another [2020] KEELC 548 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
19 November 2020
4,758 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~19 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A property owner challenging a Nairobi County enforcement notice must first use the statutory appeal process before going to court, or the case fails.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Scorpion Properties Limited sought leave to apply for judicial review against an Enforcement Notice dated 9th August, 2018 issued by the Nairobi County respondents, alleging that structures on Nairobi/Block 91/56 were illegally constructed and that a change of user was illegally procured. The applicant sought certiorari to quash the notice, prohibition against demolition, declarations that its rights to fair administrative action and property under Articles 27, 40 and 47 were violated, and that leave operate as a stay. The respondents opposed, asserting the property was disputed public land originally reserved for a fire station, listed in the Ndungu Report, the subject of a pending civil suit (Nairobi HCCC No. 2156 of 2007), and that the car bazaar permission had been revoked in 2009. The court framed two issues: whether a case for leave was made out, and whether leave should operate as a stay. It held that section 9(2) of the Fair Administrative Action Act barred judicial review before exhaustion of alternative remedies, including the appeal mechanism under section 38 of the Physical Planning Act to the Liaison Committee, National Liaison Committee and High Court, which the applicant had not used. The court further held that a judicial review court cannot determine the disputed ownership of land, and that the pending civil suit was the better forum. Finding no prima facie case and no violation of the right to fair administrative action, the court declined leave, found the stay limb unnecessary to consider, and dismissed the application with costs to the respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Exhaustion of alternative remedies as a bar to judicial review

Holding

The applicant was required to first exhaust the appeal mechanism under section 38 of the Physical Planning Act (appeal to the Liaison Committee, then the National Liaison Committee, then the High Court) before seeking judicial review, and its failure to do so barred the application.

Reasoning

Section 9(2) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015 made exhaustion of alternative remedies a statutory requirement in tandem with Article 159(2)(c). The court held it has no discretion in the matter save where exceptional circumstances justify exemption under section 9(4). The applicant gave no reason for not pursuing the statutory appeal, and its claim that the notice was invalid was a ground of appeal rather than a basis for judicial review.

p. 4
02

Whether a judicial review court can determine ownership of disputed land

Holding

The court cannot determine the ownership dispute over the suit property in judicial review proceedings; the applicant should have raised the challenge to the Enforcement Notice in the pending civil suit, HCCC No. 2156 of 2007.

Reasoning

The applicant's ownership of the suit property was disputed, the property was listed in the Ndungu Report as illegally allocated public land, and a civil suit over ownership was pending. Determining these contested issues of fact would require viva voce evidence, which judicial review cannot accommodate. The pending civil suit was the better forum to resolve all issues surrounding ownership of the suit property.

p. 5
03

Whether the applicant's right to fair administrative action was violated

Holding

No prima facie violation of the right to fair administrative action was established because the applicant had a right to be heard through the statutory appeal process, which it did not use.

Reasoning

Under section 38 of the Physical Planning Act, an Enforcement Notice does not take effect until the statutory appeal process is exhausted. The applicant was entitled to be heard by objecting to the notice and appealing, but did not make use of that mechanism. Accordingly, there was no prima facie evidence that the right to fair administrative action was violated.

p. 6
04

Whether the applicant established a prima facie case warranting leave and stay

Holding

The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case against the respondents, and the discretionary leave was refused; the stay limb fell away.

Reasoning

The Enforcement Notice was provided for in law, and whether it had any basis could only be interrogated through the statutory appeal process. The court, exercising its discretion, declined leave; consequently it was unnecessary to consider whether leave should operate as a stay.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a written law provides internal mechanisms for appeal or review or another remedy for an administrative action, the court is barred by section 9(2) of the Fair Administrative Action Act from entertaining judicial review unless those remedies have been exhausted
  • The test for leave to apply for judicial review is whether there is an arguable case without examining the matter in depth
  • A judicial review court cannot resolve a disputed question of ownership of land disguised as a judicial review application

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicant's Chamber Summons application dated 15th August, 2018 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 10(2), 22(3), 27, 40, 47, 48, 50, 159(2)(c)
  • Fair Administrative Action Actsections 4, 9(1), 9(2), 9(4)
  • Physical Planning Act, Chapter 286 Laws of Kenya (now repealed)sections 30(1), 38(1), 38(4), 38(5), 38(6)
  • Law Reform Act, Chapter 26 Laws of Kenyasection 9(3)
  • Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act, Chapter 387 Laws of Kenya

Cases cited (11)

  • Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Mirugi Kariuki v Attorney General
    [1992] eKLR
  • Pravin Galot v Chief Magistrates Court at Milimani Law Courts
    [2017] eKLR
  • John Kipkoech Rotich and 29 others v Eldama Ravine Sub-County Alcoholic Drinks Regulation Committee
    [2019] eKLR
  • Mutanga Tea & Coffee Company Ltd. v Shikara Limited & Another
    [2015] eKLR
  • Republic v National Environment Management Authority
    [2011] eKLR
  • Njuguna v Minister for Agriculture
    [2000] 1 E.A 184
  • Republic v County Council of Kwale & Another Ex Parte Kondo & 57 Others
    [1998] 1 KLR (E&L)
  • Republic v National Land Commission Ex-Parte Ephrahim Muriuki Wilson & others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Republic v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior & Co-ordination of National Government & 2 others Ex-Parte Kisimani Holdings Ltd
    [2015] eKLR
  • Sanghani Investment Limited vs. Officer in Charge Nairobi Remand and Allocation Prison
    [2007] 1 EA 354
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction under Articles 22(3) and 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015 (leave stage under the Law Reform Act regime)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Scorpion Properties Limited v Director of Planning, Compliance & Enforcement Nairobi City County & another [2020] KEELC 548 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Judicial Review Chamber Summons application dated 15th August, 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/548/eng@2020-11-19

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