General Japanese Auto Parts Limited v Nairobi City County Government & 2 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E051 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 779 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court refused to excuse a government respondent from cross-examination, ruling that disputed demolition facts must be tested by oral evidence, not affidavits.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st Respondent met the threshold for review under Section 80 CPA and Order 45 Rule 1
No - the applicant did not establish discovery of new matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient cause.
The Court restated the review framework under Section 80 and Order 45 Rule 1, requiring discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient reason, applied for without unreasonable delay. The 1st Respondent advanced no new matter and pointed to no error on the record; its grievance was simply dissatisfaction with the earlier direction, which is not a ground for review.
Whether the Petition could be determined on affidavit evidence and written submissions without viva voce evidence
No - material factual controversies require testing by oral evidence and cross-examination under Rule 20(1)(c) and (3) of the Mutunga Rules.
Rule 20 permits the Court to direct that a petition be heard by oral evidence. The Court identified material factual controversies: whether the Petitioner's developments sit on a riparian reserve, the soundness of the measurements and enforcement action, attribution of the demolition to the 1st Respondent, and the ownership challenge. These go to liability and the propriety of administrative action and cannot be fairly resolved on affidavits alone.
Whether the application was filed without unreasonable delay
Yes - although the application was filed about three and a half months after the directions, the delay was found not unreasonable despite no explanation.
The directions were issued on 20th March 2025 and the application filed on 2nd July 2025, about three and a half months later. Although no explanation for the delay was offered, the Court exercised its discretion and found the delay not unreasonable. This ground therefore did not save the applicant, who still failed on sufficient cause.
Legal principles established
#- Where material factual controversies exist that go to liability and the propriety of administrative action, they cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence alone without risking unfairness.
- A party seeking review must demonstrate discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient cause, without unreasonable delay.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 2nd July 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Petitioner
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (inherent jurisdiction to review own directions); Section 80 CPA and Order 45 Rule 1
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "General Japanese Auto Parts Limited v Nairobi City County Government & 2 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E051 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 779 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the excerpt (constitutional Petition; Petition filed 4th June 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/779/eng@2026-02-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.