Republic v Nairobi City County, Ex Parte Jackson Kiriinya Nairuti
The bottom line
#Nairobi's Environment and Land Court lifted status quo orders protecting a Mirema building but refused to order enforcement of the County's notices.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#New and important matter under Order 45 Rule 1
The alleged dangerous condition was not new; the County had earlier issued enforcement notices on the same ground, and due diligence was not demonstrated
The court found the building's structural condition was already in issue when the 29th October 2024 orders were made, as shown by the 2022 and 2023 enforcement notices. Further complaints and a later inspection were merely cumulative of a known issue, and the County failed to show the material could not, with due diligence, have been produced earlier.
Error apparent on the face of the record
No error apparent was pinpointed
Applying Nyamogo & Nyamogo v Kogo and Timber Manufacturers, the court held that an error apparent must be obvious and self-evident, requiring no elaborate argument. The County identified no such error on the record, so this ground of review failed.
Sufficient reason for review
Post-order information about cracks, leaning and a subsequent inspection constituted sufficient reason
Despite rejecting the new-evidence ground, the court held that the specific information received after 29th October 2024, being absent from the material then before the court, amounted to 'any other sufficient reason' under Order 45 Rule 1, justifying review of the status quo orders.
Implementation of enforcement notices
Refused; enforcement is the County's statutory mandate to be exercised in accordance with the law
Section 72 of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act governs enforcement and appeals. The court required proof that the notices were valid, subsisting and enforceable, which the review finding alone did not supply, and declined to direct implementation.
Legal principles established
#- Further complaints or an additional inspection do not of themselves constitute new and important matter for review where the underlying issue was already before the court
- Reviewing an order does not automatically permit enforcement of statutory notices; their validity and enforceability must be independently established
Court orders
#- 1.The orders issued on 29th October 2024 are reviewed and set aside
- 2.Each party shall bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5 of the Judicature Act; Article 159(2)(a) and (d) of the Constitution; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Nairobi City County, Ex Parte Jackson Kiriinya Nairuti", Case Analysis (2026). ELC EP Judicial Review No. E006 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6200/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.