Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELC 3261 (KLR)

Kinuthia v County Government of Kiambu (Environment & Land Case E067 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3261 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
2 April 2025
JOJ. M. Onyango
2,445 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan landowner challenging a county enforcement notice must first appeal to the County Liaison Committee before going to court, or the suit will be struck out.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff, registered proprietor of L.R No. Kiambu/Municipality/Block 5 (Kiamumbi) 1489, sued the County Government of Kiambu by plaint dated 3rd May 2024, alleging that on 2nd May 2024 county officials, accompanied by armed police, invaded his premises (Jacaranda Business Center), evicted tenants and removed goods without prior notice pursuant to an enforcement notice said to be defective (dated 2nd August 2024 but allegedly served 2nd May 2024). Together with the plaint he sought a temporary injunction. The Defendant filed a Preliminary Objection dated 21st May 2024 arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because Section 72 of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, 2019 requires an aggrieved person to appeal to the County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee, with any further appeal to the Environment and Land Court on matters of law only, and the Plaintiff had not exhausted that mechanism. The Plaintiff countered that the Liaison Committee could not grant the reliefs sought (injunction, general and special damages, damages for trespass, loss of income and mesne profits), that the notice was invalid, and that the enforcement had already been executed. In a ruling delivered on 2nd April 2025, J.M Onyango J applied the Mukisa Biscuit definition of a preliminary objection and the Supreme Court's jurisdiction dictum in Samuel Kamau Macharia, held that the Plaintiff ought to exhaust the statutory dispute mechanism regarding the validity of the enforcement notice, upheld the P.O, remitted the suit to the Kiambu County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee, and awarded the Defendant costs of the P.O.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit offends Section 72(3) and (4) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act 2019

Holding

Yes. The Plaintiff, being aggrieved by an enforcement notice, ought first to appeal to the County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee before coming to court; the P.O is upheld and the suit remitted to the Committee.

Reasoning

The court adopted the Mukisa Biscuit definition of a preliminary objection and the Supreme Court's dictum on jurisdiction in Samuel Kamau Macharia. Section 72(3) requires an aggrieved person to appeal to the County Liaison Committee within fourteen days, and Section 72(4) limits any further appeal to the court to matters of law. The Plaintiff's grievance over the enforcement notice of 2nd May 2024 fell squarely within that statutory framework, so the court could not entertain the suit directly.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Where statute provides a primary dispute adjudication mechanism, a party must exhaust that mechanism before invoking the court's jurisdiction
  • A court's jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or legislation and cannot be expanded by judicial craft

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Defendant's Preliminary Objection relating to the jurisdiction of the court to determine the suit is upheld
  2. 2.The suit is remitted to the Kiambu County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee for adjudication as a claim/dispute/complaint/grievance within the framework of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act 2019
  3. 3.The Plaintiff shall bear the costs of the Preliminary Objection

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Physical and Land Use Planning ActSection 72 (including 72(2), 72(3), 72(4))
  • Physical and Land Use Planning ActSection 78
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Article 162(2) and 162(2)(b)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 27(1)

Cases cited (6)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Company Ltd v West End Distributors Limited
    (1969) E.A 696
  • Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & 2 others
    [2012] eKLR
  • Owners of Motor Vessel “Lilian S” vs Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
    [1989] eKLR
  • Karanja vs County Government of Kilifi
    [2022] eKLR
  • Graham Oates vs Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Canterbury City Council
    EWHC 2716 (Admin) [2017]
  • In the Matter of Interim Independent Electoral Commission (Applicant), Constitution Application Number 2 of 2011
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 (Environment and Land Court); disputed via Section 72(3) and (4) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, 2019

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kinuthia v County Government of Kiambu (Environment & Land Case E067 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3261 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3261/eng@2025-04-02

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