Republic v Nairobi City County; Ibrahim (Exparte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 4 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 48 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court quashed a Nairobi County enforcement notice because the county never gave affected property owners a hearing or reasons.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction / doctrine of exhaustion
The preliminary objection failed because the statutory dispute-resolution mechanism under Section 72 of PLUPA was unavailable - the Nairobi County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee was not constituted or operationalized - so the Applicant was exempted from exhausting it under section 9(4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
The Applicant deposed that the Liaison Committee's members' terms expired in June 2023 and although gazetted on 7th December 2023, the committee was not operationalized and no information was given on when it would sit. The court had granted leave on that basis. Exceptional circumstances depend on the facts of each case, and the Applicant had no other choice but to come to court; exemption was in the interest of justice, so the doctrine of exhaustion was not violated and jurisdiction existed.
Procedural impropriety and natural justice
The enforcement notice was issued in breach of natural justice: the Applicant was not afforded a hearing and was not given reasons, rendering the decision liable to be quashed.
Relying on authority defining procedural impropriety as failure to act fairly, including non-observance of the rules of natural justice, and on decisions requiring prior, adequate notice disclosing reasons under Article 47 and section 4(3) of the FAAA, the court found the Respondent's decision deprived the Applicant and other residents of their property without an opportunity to respond. The Respondent filed no replying affidavit despite indulgence, so the Applicant's uncontroverted evidence stood.
Legal principles established
#- A court may exempt an applicant from the obligation to exhaust statutory remedies under section 9(4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act where exceptional circumstances exist and it is in the interest of justice, as where the statutory liaison committee is not operational.
- An administrative decision depriving a person of property without affording a hearing is tainted with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety and will be quashed.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of certiorari removing to the court the enforcement notice dated 21st November 2023 issued by the Respondent, which is quashed.
- 2.An order of prohibition prohibiting the Respondent, Nairobi City County Government, from proceeding to enforce the enforcement notice dated 21st November 2023.
- 3.Costs of the proceedings awarded to the ex parte Applicant against the Respondent.
- 4.The Respondent's preliminary objection dated 1st March 2024 dismissed.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act, Order 53 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Part III of the Fair Administrative Action Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Nairobi City County; Ibrahim (Exparte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 4 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 48 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/48/eng@2025-01-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.