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 AllowedPetition No E016 of 2025· [2026] KEELC 508 (KLR)

Ahmed & another v County Government of Kilifi (Petition E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 508 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 January 2026
EME. K. Makori
977 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land court ruled that disputes over planning enforcement notices must first go to the county liaison committee before any court will hear them.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 25th November 2025 arguing that the Environment and Land Court lacks jurisdiction over the petition because the dispute, arising from the refusal of development permission communicated by letter dated 21st July 2025, should be referred to the Kilifi County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee under Section 72(3) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act. The court canvassed the objection by written submissions and framed a single issue: whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The petitioners countered that the respondent failed to tender the Kenya Gazette Notice proving the committee exists and its members have been constituted, invoking Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act on burden of proof. The court applied the Mukisa Biscuit definition of a preliminary objection, Section 72(3) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, the exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine from Republic v NEMA, and the Karume doctrine, holding that grievances arising from enforcement notices must first be taken to the County Liaison Committee, not the ELC. However, because of doubt whether the Kilifi committee exists, the court stayed the petition pending referral, with liberty to revive it if the committee does not exist. The preliminary objection succeeded to that extent, and the court made no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the ELC over a petition concerning refusal of development permission where an alternative statutory forum exists

Holding

The court lacks jurisdiction as a court of first instance; grievances under enforcement notices must first go to the County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee under Section 72(3) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act

Reasoning

The court found that Section 72(3) designates the County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee as the specialized statutory body to hear grievances arising from enforcement notices. Applying the exhaustion doctrine and the Karume principle, the committee is the forum of first instance, not the ELC. Because of doubt whether the committee exists, the court stayed rather than dismissed the petition.

p. 2
02

Effect of the respondent's failure to produce the Kenya Gazette Notice constituting the committee

Holding

Doubt as to the committee's existence led the court to stay the petition rather than dismiss it, with liberty to revive the petition if the committee does not exist

Reasoning

The petitioners argued, citing Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act, that the respondent bore the burden of proving the committee's existence. The court accepted there is doubt whether such a committee exists and therefore adopted a stay pending referral, allowing revival if the committee is shown not to exist.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection must be a point of law based on uncontested facts and not require examination of substantive issues
  • Where a statute provides a clear procedure for redress of a grievance, that procedure must be strictly followed before resorting to the courts (exhaustion of statutory remedies)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The petition is stayed pending referral to the Kilifi County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee
  2. 2.If the committee does not exist, the petition can be revived
  3. 3.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Physical and Land Use Planning ActSection 72(3)
  • Evidence ActSections 107 and 108

Cases cited (3)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd
    [1969] EA 696
  • Republic v National Environment Management Authority
    [2011] eKLR
  • Speaker of the National Assembly v Karume
    [1992] KLR 21
Jurisdiction invoked
Constitutional petition jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; objection based on Section 72(3) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ahmed & another v County Government of Kilifi (Petition E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 508 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Petition No E016 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/508/eng@2026-01-28

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