Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the excerpt· [2025] KEELC 7539 (KLR)

Pelican Manufacturers Limited & another v Machakos County Government (Environment and Land Petition 1 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7539 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
4 November 2025
AKA. Y. Koross
2,883 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled Machakos County unlawfully revoked a hospital's construction permit, awarding Sh2 million damages, but rejected the broader property rights claims.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioners, through an amended petition, challenged the revocation by the County Government (respondent) of development permission granted on 31 October 2019 and extended on 17 March 2021 to fence, excavate and dump black cotton soil on LR No. 337/5170. The revocation was conveyed by an undated letter from the Mavoko sub-county Municipal Planner invoking Section 57(5) and (6) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act. The petitioners alleged violations of Articles 40 and 47(1) of the Constitution and sought declarations, an injunction or prohibition, compensation for security charges, damages and costs. The respondent maintained it acted lawfully to protect public land. The court identified two issues: whether the rights under Articles 40 and 47(1) were violated, and what orders should issue. On the first, it held that although the Municipal Planner acted under valid delegation and the undated nature of the notice was not fatal, the ground relied on — pending determination of ownership — is not contemplated by Section 57(5) and (6), no breach of the Act or conditions was proved, and no proper notice was served; the revocation was therefore ultra vires, arbitrary and unreasonable, violating Article 47. However, the Article 40 claim failed: the title proved ownership but no deprivation was alleged or shown, and no evidence established the property as public land. The claim for security charges failed for want of evidence linking the second payer petitioner to the property; the second petitioner's case was dismissed entirely for want of evidence. The court granted declaratory relief as to ownership and the Article 47 violation, awarded Kshs. 2,000,000 in damages to the first petitioner, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the revocation of development permission violated Article 47

Holding

Yes — the revocation was ultra vires and procedurally unfair

Reasoning

Section 57(5) and (6) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act permits revocation only for breach of the Act or its conditions or for a justifiable reason. The Municipal Planner acted under valid delegation and the undated notice was not fatal since it was collected. However, pending determination of ownership was not a permissible ground, no breach was proved, and no proper notice was served, making the revocation arbitrary and unreasonable.

p. 5
02

Whether the right to property under Article 40 was violated

Holding

No — ownership was proved by title, but no infringement was established

Reasoning

The title was prima facie evidence of ownership, but neither the respondent's letters nor the charge sheets asserted that the property was public land, and no deprivation was alleged or proved. The Article 40 claim therefore failed despite the unlawful revocation.

p. 5
03

Whether compensation for security charges was payable

Holding

No

Reasoning

The receipts and bank statements showed the second petitioner as payer, but no lease agreement or other evidence linked the second petitioner to the suit property, nor was there evidence that the respondent sought to deprive the first petitioner of the property so as to necessitate the security.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A development permission may only be revoked under Section 57(5) and (6) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act where the applicant has breached the Act or the conditions of the permission, or for a justifiable reason; revocation on an unauthorised ground is ultra vires.
  • An administrative body must serve notice of revocation affording an opportunity to respond; failure renders the decision arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.
  • The burden of proof lies on the person who alleges violation of a constitutional right.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration is hereby issued that the first petitioner is entitled to the LR No. 337/5170 as the registered owner thereof.
  2. 2.It is hereby declared that the first petitioner's rights under Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, have been violated by the respondent.
  3. 3.Damages of Kshs. 2,000,000 awarded to the first petitioner, payable by the respondent.
  4. 4.Each party shall bear its respective costs of this petition.
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 20, 22, 23, 258 of the Constitution; Fair Administrative Action Act sections 5, 7 and 12; environment and land jurisdiction

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Pelican Manufacturers Limited & another v Machakos County Government (Environment and Land Petition 1 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7539 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7539/eng@2025-11-04

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