Anthony Njoroge & 2 others v County Government of Nairobi & another [2020] KEELC 1649 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Nairobi county must pay Kshs 4.9 million for demolishing property without serving an enforcement notice first, though only the registered owner was compensated.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 2nd petitioner's right to property under Article 40 was breached
Yes - the 1st respondent demolished the developments without serving an enforcement notice as required by Sections 38 and 39 of the Physical Planning Act, and the allegation of no prior notice went uncontroverted
The demolition occurred on 5/7/2016 when the Physical Planning Act was in force. Section 38 mandated service of an enforcement notice before demolition, giving the affected party a right to be heard and to appeal. The 1st respondent filed no response to the petition despite accommodation by the court, so the evidence that no notice was served was unchallenged. Due process was therefore denied and Article 40 was violated.
Which petitioners had locus to claim under Article 40
Only the 2nd petitioner, the registered proprietor of the suit property at the time the cause of action accrued
The title to the suit property was at all material times in the name of the 2nd petitioner. The 1st petitioner produced no conclusive evidence of co-ownership, and the 3rd petitioner, a distinct legal entity, did not own the suit property nor present evidence of a valid cause of action under Article 40.
Quantum of damages
Kshs 4,947,400 awarded - the replacement cost of the borehole plant assessed by the drilling engineers (Kshs 4,400,000) plus the lower assessed value of other damaged items (Kshs 547,400); general and punitive damages refused
Two uncontroverted valuation reports were placed before the court. The court preferred the figure of the technical firm that drilled and installed the borehole for the plant, and the lower Planet Valuers figure for the other damaged items. Because the demolished developments were never shown to have been approved, no more than the value of the damaged property was deserved.
Legal principles established
#- A local authority was required to issue and serve an enforcement notice under Section 38 of the Physical Planning Act before demolishing developments erected in contravention of the Act; demolition without such notice violates the right to property under Article 40
- Unchallenged evidence stands uncontroverted where a respondent fails to respond to a petition
Court orders
#- 1.The petition against the 2nd respondent is marked abandoned with no order as to costs
- 2.The petition by the 1st and 3rd petitioners is dismissed for lack of merit, with costs to the 1st respondent
- 3.The petition by the 2nd petitioner succeeds against the 1st respondent and she is awarded damages of Kshs 4,947,400 plus costs of the petition against the 1st respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional petition jurisdiction; petition lodged in the High Court on 12/8/2016 and transferred to this court by Mwita J on 22/1/2018
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Shina Holdings Limited v Chege & 6 others (Environment and Land Petition E016 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8082 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 8082 (KLR)20 Nov 2025
- Farid Faraj Awadh Bamaftah v County Government of Kilifi[2023] KEELC 15865 (KLR)1 Mar 2023
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Anthony Njoroge & 2 others v County Government of Nairobi & another [2020] KEELC 1649 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1649/eng@2020-07-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.