Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedEnvironment & Land Case (unnumbered on record - plaint dated 24th May, 2019)· [2025] KEELC 6184 (KLR)

Kerema v Government of Makueni County (Environment and Land Case 35 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 6184 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 September 2025
EOE. O. Obaga
2,116 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The court dismissed a landowner's challenge to a county enforcement notice because he skipped the required appeal to the County Liaison Committee before going to court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, registered lessee of Parcel No. Emali Town/27 (formerly Plot 59) and beneficial owner in possession of Parcel No. Emali Township Block 1/217 (formerly Plot 125) in Emali, sued the County Government of Makueni seeking nullification of Enforcement Notice No. GMC/LMHPP/Emali/9/519/63 and a permanent injunction against demolition of his structures. He complained that the county demolished parts of his buildings in 2014, thereafter approved his building plans in 2015 and issued occupation certificates for thirty-six units, yet in May 2019 issued a fresh enforcement notice alleging encroachment on a road reserve. He argued estoppel, legitimate expectation and unfair administrative action. The defendant filed a defence contending no cause of action but led no evidence and did not cross-examine PW1; its submissions were not on record. The court identified the sole core issue as the validity of the enforcement notice, powers over which flow from sections 38 and 39 of the Physical Planning Act (now repealed). Relying on sections 38(4)-(7) and 39(2), and applying the Karume principle and authorities including Immaculate Gicuku Mugo v Kiambu County Government, the court held that the plaintiff was obliged to appeal first to the County Liaison Committee and that the ELC can only exercise appellate jurisdiction from that committee's decision, save where no operational liaison committee exists. The plaintiff having conceded he went straight to court, the suit was incompetent and prematurely raised the notice's validity. The suit was dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction over challenges to enforcement notices under the Physical Planning Act

Holding

The court lacks original jurisdiction where the statutory appeal to the liaison committee has not been pursued; its role is appellate from the committee's decision

Reasoning

Sections 38(4)-(7) and 39(2) of the Physical Planning Act provide a clear appeal mechanism. The plaintiff confirmed he moved straight to court without lodging an appeal. Following Karume and subsequent authorities, the prescribed procedure must be strictly followed, and the court can only exercise appellate jurisdiction from the liaison committee's decision.

p. 4
02

Estoppel arising from prior approval of building plans

Holding

Not determined; the suit failed on jurisdiction before the merits, including the estoppel argument, could be reached

Reasoning

The plaintiff argued the defendant approved his plans and issued occupation certificates, so it was estopped from enforcing the 2019 notice. The court did not address this on the merits, holding instead that the validity of the notice had been prematurely challenged in these proceedings.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a statute prescribes a procedure for challenging an enforcement notice by appeal to the liaison committee, that procedure must be exhausted before recourse to the court
  • The ELC may exercise primary jurisdiction over enforcement-notice disputes only where no operational liaison committee exists
  • A person who has not appealed under section 38 cannot question the validity of action taken under an enforcement notice on grounds that could have been raised in the appeal

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit is dismissed
  2. 2.No orders as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court Act jurisdiction; the court held its jurisdiction over enforcement notices is appellate only, from the County Liaison Committee under Sections 38 and 39 of the Physical Planning Act (repealed)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kerema v Government of Makueni County (Environment and Land Case 35 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 6184 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Environment & Land Case (unnumbered on record - plaint dated 24th May, 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6184/eng@2025-09-25

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