Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Grace Wairimu Sorora v City Council of Nairobi

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI ELC. 340 OF 2010 GRACE WAIRIMU SORORA.....................................................................................................................PLAINTIFF Being the administration of the estate of Francis Sorora Oloitiptip (Deceased) VERSUS CITY COUNCIL OF NAIROBI.................................................................................................................DEFENDANT RULING There is no dispute that the suit property, that is L.R. No. 209/9749, belongs to the deceased Francis Sorora Oloitiptip and that the Plaintiff is holder of a limited grant (“GWS1”) and thereby authorized to bring this suit on behalf of the Estate. On the suit land is operated Zam Zam Bar & Restaurant. On 9th July 2010 the Defendant served the Plaintiff with an Enforcement Notice under section 30 of the Physical Planning Act (Cap.286) asking her to remove illegal structures and to cease to occupy the same. The Notice was for 7 days and she was warned that if she did not comply the Defendant was going to demolish the structures. This is what forced her to file this suit for a permanent injunction. In the interim, she sought a temporary injunction under Order 39 rules 1, 2 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. In the plaint and in the supporting affidavit, the Plaintiff stated that they have constructed a temporary structure and sewer on the suit property and that this was done with the approval of the Defendant. The replying affidavit indicates that the Defendant did not approve the offending structures. No approval was produced by the Plaintiff. The structures would prima facie be illegal and therefore liable to demolition. There is no evidence that the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss or injury which damages cannot adequately compensate, or which the Defendant would be unable to pay.

page 1 of 2

The balance of convenience should tilt in favour of the Defendant who is executing its mandate under the Physical Planning Act to demolish a structure in respect of which there is no approval. On basis of Giella –Vs- Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [973] EA 358, I dismiss the application with costs. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2011 A. O. MUCHELULE JUDGE

page 2 of 2

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.