22 Others & 22 Others v The Municipal Council of Nakuru & 3 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal dismissed ratepayers' property tax challenge because the precedent their entire case relied on had been overturned and the old law repealed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the appeal was moot upon the Court of Appeal's reversal of the Maraga, J. decision
Yes. The Maraga, J. decision was the sole foundation of the appellants' petition; its reversal by the Court of Appeal on 23rd October 2014 restored Section 12 of the Valuation for Rating Act to force, so no live controversy remained when this appeal was filed on 30th January 2020.
The court held that a case is moot when supervening events destroy a justiciable controversy. Once a decision is overturned in its entirety by a higher court, it ceases to exist and matters revert to their prior position. The appellants' pleadings and reliefs arose directly from the Maraga, J. decision, so its reversal cut the ground from under their claim, rendering the appeal dead on arrival.
Whether the repeal of the Valuation for Rating Act by the National Rating Act independently resolved the controversy
Yes. The savings and transition provisions of Section 59 of the National Rating Act preserve existing valuation rolls and govern the transition, so the repealed statutory scheme could no longer ground the dispute.
The court noted that Section 59 of the National Rating Act deems existing valuation rolls to have been prepared under the new Act and requires county governments to bring non-conforming rolls into conformity within twenty-four months. The provision 'warrants no explanation', reinforcing that the repealed Act and its valuation-court regime could not sustain the appellants' claim.
Whether failure to set up rating courts violated ratepayers' rights notwithstanding the reversal and repeal
No. The claim of violation was entirely premised on the Maraga, J. decision; once that decision was overturned, the claim collapsed and no independent constitutional violation arose.
The court found that the appellants' pleadings and reliefs directly arose from the alleged failure to amend Section 12 in conformity with the Maraga, J. decision. The Court of Appeal had found the Section constitutional and faulted Maraga, J.; the appellants' claims premised on the overturned decision collapsed by operation of law. In addition, the High Court judgment itself was largely an academic exercise because it was delivered after the reversal and the parties had not brought that reversal to the trial court's attention.
Legal principles established
#- A decision overturned in its entirety by a higher court ceases to exist; claims premised solely on that overturned decision collapse, and any subsequent appeal founded on it is moot and liable to dismissal
- Courts decline jurisdiction over moot or academic disputes unless, among others, a compelling constitutional issue requiring formulation of controlling principles arises or the case is capable of repetition yet evading judicial review
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the appeal awarded to the first respondent
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nakuru
- Constitutional Petition No. 17 of 2011
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over the High Court judgment (memorandum of appeal dated 30th January 2020); no specific constitutional provision cited as the basis
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "22 Others & 22 Others v The Municipal Council of Nakuru & 3 others", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Appeal (memorandum of appeal dated 30th January 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/566/eng@2025-03-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.