Republic v County Executive Committee Member Nairobi City County & another; Hale End Properties Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 490 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Nairobi's Environment and Land Court quashed the County's revocation of Hale End Properties' building permit, ruling it was issued without notice or a hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction in light of the doctrine of exhaustion
The court had jurisdiction to entertain the judicial review application at first instance because the Liaison Committee was suspended indefinitely and constitutional issues under articles 40 and 47 were raised.
Section 9(4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act permits exemption from exhaustion in exceptional circumstances where it is in the interest of justice. The applicant evidenced, and the respondents did not rebut, the indefinite suspension of the Nairobi County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee. The dispute also raised non-peripheral questions of fair administrative action and property rights going to legality and rationality, bringing it within the recognised exceptions to exhaustion.
Legality and procedural fairness of the stop and revocation notices
The revocation of development permission was unlawful, unprocedural and disproportionate, breaching article 47 of the Constitution.
No notice of revocation in the prescribed Form PLUPA/DC/12 was issued as required by regulation 28; the revocation was effected three days after the suspension letter, before the applicant responded or the seven-day verification window elapsed; no inquiry into ownership had been concluded and condition (f) non-compliance was unproven. The escalation from an ongoing inquiry to final revocation without a hearing was disproportionate and breached the right to fair administrative action.
Whether the respondents could determine ownership of the suit property
The respondents could not, through administrative action, reopen ownership questions already determined by a subsisting court judgment.
Questions of title fall within land registration and adjudicatory processes established by law. The ownership of LR No 1870/IV/71 had been conclusively determined in Shimoni Resort Limited v Registrar of Titles, which found the applicant's predecessor a bona fide purchaser for value, and that judgment had not been reviewed or set aside. The KeNHA v Shalien Masood Mughal principle on indefeasibility presupposes an affirmative finding of unlawful acquisition, none of which existed here.
Whether section 61(2) of PLUPA and article 66(1) justified the revocation
Neither provision authorised the revocation as carried out.
Section 61(2) governs the consideration of an application for development permission within the statutory timeline and does not provide a basis to revoke an already-granted permission on the footing of disputed ownership. Article 66(1) permits regulation of land use in the public interest, but such regulation must be exercised within the confines of the law and in a manner that is reasonable, proportionate and procedurally fair under article 47.
Legal principles established
#- The doctrine of exhaustion presupposes an accessible, functional and efficacious alternative forum; where the statutory forum is unavailable, the remedy is illusory and the court may exempt the applicant under section 9(4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
- Revocation of development permission is a terminal administrative act requiring strict compliance with statutory and procedural safeguards, including notice in the prescribed form and a hearing.
- A planning authority cannot, through administrative action, reopen ownership questions or undermine a subsisting judicial determination on title.
Court orders
#- 1.Exemption of the ex parte applicant from the obligation to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal before the Nairobi County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee, pursuant to section 9(4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act
- 2.Order of certiorari calling into court and quashing the decisions in the letters dated March 21, 2025 and March 24, 2025
- 3.Declaration that the decisions in the two letters were unlawful, unreasonable and procedurally unfair and in breach of article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act
- 4.Order of prohibition restraining the respondents, their agents and anyone acting under their authority from interfering with, stopping, suspending or taking adverse enforcement action against the applicant's proposed development on LR No 1870/IV/71 (Nairobi/Block 3/85) on the basis of the impugned letters
- 5.Costs of the suit to be borne by the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 23(3), 47, 162(2)(b), 165 and 258 of the Constitution; sections 3, 5, 7, 9(4), 11 and 13 of the Fair Administrative Action Act; section 13(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v County Executive Committee Member Nairobi City County & another; Hale End Properties Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 490 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Judicial Review Application dated April 9, 2025 (Nairobi, Environment and Land Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/490/eng@2026-02-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.