Radheshyam Transport Limited v Nairobi City County & another (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E268 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 8622 (KLR)

Sections 24(a) and 26(1) of the Land Registration Act vest absolute ownership in the registered proprietor unless the title is impeached for fraud, misrepresentation or illegal acquisition. The Defendant's assertion that root-of-title documents were not produced was unsupported by evidence; no competing claim or improper allocation was proved, so the denial did not discharge the Defendant's evidentiary burden under Sections 107–109 of the Evidence Act.

Although the Defendant argued that no formal development permission under Section 57 PLUPA was obtained and that NEMA/NCA documents are not development permission, the Defendant adduced no evidence that the approvals produced were forgeries. Section 91 PLUPA preserves approvals issued under the repealed Physical Planning Act, so the 2017–2020 approvals remain valid.

Section 72 PLUPA requires a county executive committee member to serve a written enforcement notice specifying the breach and required compliance steps before enforcement. The 1st Defendant admitted no notice was issued. The Plaintiff's uncontested facts established harassment and arbitrary arrest. Enforcement without notice denied the Plaintiff a hearing and violated proprietary and fair administrative action rights.

The Plaintiff filed suit in December 2020 when the Liaison Committee under Section 61 PLUPA did not yet exist, becoming operational only in 2021. Following Mutanga Tea & Coffee Co. v Shikara Ltd, exhaustion does not apply where the statutory remedies are inadequate or unavailable. The Plaintiff therefore had no alternative forum and the doctrine could not bar the suit.