Riunga v County Planning Committee, Nairobi City County & 2 others

The court found from minutes and attendance schedules that the Appellant attended both meetings where the change of user approval was disclosed. Section 61(3) requires an appeal within 14 days. Time runs from knowledge of the decision, which can arise by attendance at a meeting where the decision is disseminated. The Appellant's contradictory averments as to when she learned of the decision undermined her credibility. The appeal filed on 7th June 2022 was therefore hopelessly out of time.

The appeal belonged to the Appellant, who was content to prosecute it on affidavit evidence without seeking directions for oral testimony. Cross-examination is discretionary and requires a proper legal foundation. The Committee was not obliged to advise the Appellant on how to prosecute her appeal, and in any event granted latitude for cross-examination of the physical planner and the 2nd Respondent's representative.

The change of user application was advertised in a local daily, displayed at the locus in quo, and neighbours including Nyumbani Children Home filed letters of no objection. Under section 6(3) of the Fair Administrative Actions Act, reasons are furnished on request; the Appellant never applied for reasons. The decision was therefore administratively fair, lawful and reasonable, with no breach of Article 47.

Applying the separate legal personality principle from Salomon v Salomon, the 2nd Respondent is a distinct limited liability company entitled to the protection of the law without discrimination irrespective of its directors or shareholders. The actions or omissions of Petro City Ltd cannot be used to judge the application mounted by the 2nd Respondent, which the 1st Respondent was legally bound to receive and determine.