Republic v Attorney General (For and on behalf of the Government of Kenya); Apiyo & 5 others (Ex parte Applicants) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E012 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1439 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court dismissed a bid to stop flood-related land demolitions in Nairobi, ruling no unlawful decision existed and emergencies can justify limiting hearing rights.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a decision capable of being prohibited existed
No specific unlawful decision targeting the applicants was demonstrated; the Cabinet notice was a general precautionary directive on flooding and did not constitute a decision to deprive the applicants of their land
The court examined the impugned notice and found it directed the Nairobi Rivers Commission, County Government and Ministry to work with riverine communities on a 30-metre planning corridor. There was no indication the notice targeted the applicants or their properties, and no decision to compulsorily acquire their land was evident. The claimed proprietary basis - a proposed land use plan and lease certificates - did not establish an unlawful decision by the respondents.
Whether the applicants' right to fair administrative action (Article 47) was violated
No violation; any limitation of the right was justified under Article 24 as a necessary emergency measure to protect life and property during the floods
The court accepted that the applicants were not given a hearing, but held that floods are natural disasters that cannot be paused for consultations. The Special Cabinet's immediate priority was evacuating persons at risk and demolishing structures that could intensify flooding. Under Article 24 the limitation was reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society given the emergency.
Whether the applicants were discriminated against contrary to Article 27
No discrimination proven; no evidence of differential or prejudicial treatment on any Article 27 ground
Although the applicants alleged that other structures within the corridor were not earmarked for demolition, they produced no cogent evidence showing they were treated differently from other persons in similar circumstances, nor any treatment on a ground enumerated in Article 27. The claim therefore failed.
Misjoinder/identification of the decision-maker
The court noted that the decision attributed to the Cabinet was not challenged against the Cabinet, which was not joined as a party
The applicants attributed the impugned directive to the Cabinet but sued only the Attorney General on behalf of the Government without identifying the particular authority responsible for the decision. This weakened their claim for a prohibition order directed at the respondent.
Legal principles established
#- The right to fair administrative action under Article 47 is not absolute and may be limited in exceptional circumstances such as emergencies where immediate action is necessary to protect life and property
- A proposed land use plan does not by itself confer proprietary rights in land
- Prohibition cannot quash a decision already made; it only prevents a contemplated decision
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 27th June 2024 is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 40, 47, 60 and 64 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and Order 53 rules 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Attorney General (For and on behalf of the Government of Kenya); Apiyo & 5 others (Ex parte Applicants) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E012 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1439 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 27th June 2024 (Judicial Review). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1439/eng@2026-02-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.