Adsite Ltd v Nairobi City County Government & another (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4406 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a county government acted unconstitutionally by demolishing a billboard without notice, but awarded no damages.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the billboard was lawfully erected on the road reserve for purposes of Article 40 protection
The Court was unable to conclusively determine lawfulness either way: the Petitioner exhibited receipts of road reserve charges paid to KeNHA but did not exhibit the written permission contemplated under Section 49(1) of the Kenya Roads Act; equally, the absence of the written approval did not, without more, establish unlawful erection
Article 40 protects only lawfully acquired interests, so the Court first examined whether the Petitioner held a legally protectable interest. The receipts evidenced a commercial interest and payments to KeNHA, but the statutory written permission was absent. Crucially, however, KeNHA never declared the billboard unlawful, revoked any permission, issued a removal notice or invoked enforcement mechanisms, so the Court could not infer the structure had been declared unlawful by the statutorily charged authority.
Whether the Respondents' administrative action was undertaken pursuant to lawful authority
The Respondents did not demonstrate that the action was undertaken pursuant to lawful authority: they placed no material showing the billboard stood outside a national road reserve, that KeNHA had authorised the action, or that any lawful inter-agency enforcement process was followed; nor did they show the 2nd Respondent possessed any statutory authority over the road reserve after compulsory acquisition
The Court examined the constitutional and statutory mandate of the 1st Respondent. Regulation of outdoor advertising is assigned to County Governments, but that mandate must be exercised harmoniously with the Kenya Roads Act where a structure sits on a national road reserve. The Respondents produced no material demonstrating lawful authority or inter-agency enforcement, and the 2nd Respondent's claimed authority over the acquired parcel was unsupported by any evidence.
Whether the procedure followed complied with Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act
The administrative action violated Article 47: no enforcement notice, notice to show cause, decision declaring the billboard unlawful, or correspondence inviting representations was disclosed, and the Respondents exhibited no statutory notice or enforcement order demonstrating compliance with Sections 4(3) and 4(4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act
Sections 4(3) and 4(4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act require prior notice, adequate reasons and an opportunity to be heard before administrative action adversely affecting rights is taken. The record disclosed none of these safeguards. The Court held, applying Judicial Service Commission v Mbalu Mutava, that administrative action must satisfy both substantive legal authority and constitutional procedural safeguards, and that a belief in illegality does not dispense with due process.
Whether the Petitioner was entitled to special and general damages
Special damages failed for lack of strict proof and sufficient nexus to the procedural violation; general damages were declined because the declaratory and injunctive reliefs adequately vindicated the established Article 47 violation
The Court applied the settled rule that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved (Hahn v Singh). Although sums were pleaded and invoices produced, the evidence did not establish the entirety of the losses or the requisite legal nexus to the violation. On general damages, applying Gitobu Imanyara, remedies are discretionary, vindicate the Constitution rather than punish, and the declaration and injunction sufficed in the circumstances.
Legal principles established
#- Every administrative action must satisfy both the substantive authority conferred by law and the procedural safeguards guaranteed by the Constitution; administrative actions of public officers and State organs are subjected to the principle of constitutionality rather than the doctrine of ultra vires
- Even where a public authority believes a structure has been unlawfully erected, that belief does not dispense with the obligation to observe due process
- Special damages must not only be specifically pleaded but must also be strictly proved
- An award of damages does not automatically follow every constitutional violation; the appropriate remedy depends on the circumstances of each case and constitutional remedies are intended primarily to vindicate the Constitution rather than to punish a public authority
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration is hereby issued that the administrative action complained of in relation to the Petitioner's billboard violated Article 47 of the Constitution
- 2.A permanent injunction is hereby issued restraining the Respondents, their servants, agents or any person acting under their authority from interfering with or demolishing the Petitioner's billboard otherwise than in accordance with the law
- 3.The prayers for special damages and general damages are hereby declined
- 4.Each party shall bear its own costs of the Petition
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 read together with the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015, in respect of the demolition of a billboard on a national road reserve; the Kenya Roads Act, 2007 (Sections 4, 22 and 49(1)) governs the occupation and use of road reserves
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Adsite Ltd v Nairobi City County Government & another (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4406 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Petition dated 17th January 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4406/eng@2026-07-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.