Republic v Director of Planning Compliance & Enforcement, Nairobi City County; Waska Company Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E012 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 4908 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court dismissed a judicial review challenge to a county enforcement notice, ruling that land ownership disputes must be fought in civil courts, not review proceedings.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Applicant has locus standi to institute the application
- 2.Whether the Exparte Applicant has made a case for grant of the Judicial Review remedies sought
- 3.What orders should issue as to costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant had locus standi despite the enforcement notice naming a different parcel of land
The Applicant had sufficient interest because the enforcement notice would directly affect its interest in the land; the locus objection failed
The court accepted that in judicial review a party need only show sufficient interest, citing Lord Diplock's formulation. Although the notice named LR 5980/1 and the Applicant held a sub-lease over LR 28223/33/C2, the notice would directly affect the Applicant's interest in the parcel. The Respondent's locus objection therefore failed.
Whether the Applicant made a case for judicial review remedies of certiorari and prohibition
No - the underlying dispute is one of land ownership, unresolvable in judicial review; the Applicant chose the wrong forum and the motion was dismissed
The parties' real conflict was ownership of the land the subject of the enforcement notice. Judicial review examines only the decision-making process on affidavit evidence; determining ownership would require viva voce evidence and cross-examination in civil courts. The court adopted Sanghani Investment and Kisimani Holdings and declined to resolve the land dispute disguised as judicial review.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review is concerned only with the decision-making process, not contested ownership disputes requiring viva voce evidence
- Locus standi in judicial review requires only sufficient interest, to be construed widely on the facts of each case
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 22/01/2024
- 2.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 22(3) of the Constitution - judicial review of administrative action over which original jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court
Relief refused
#Order of certiorari quashing the enforcement notice dated 16th October 2023
The dispute is really about ownership of land, which cannot be determined in judicial review proceedings; the Applicant chose the wrong forum
Order of prohibition and stay of the enforcement notice
The remedies sought would resolve contested factual issues of ownership unsuitable for judicial review
Costs
No order as to costs - the Notice of Motion was dismissed with no order as to costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The issues raised by the parties are on the ownership of the subject properties of land, which cannot be a ground for granting Judicial Review orders.
The interests of justice will not be served by orders of Judicial Review.
I find no merit in the Applicant’s Notice of Motion Application dated 22/01/2024. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Due to the foregoing, I find no merit in the Applicant’s Notice of Motion Application dated 22/01/2024. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs. It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#Respondent grounded locus objection on non-exhaustion of the appeal mechanism under Section 72(3) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, 2019, but the court did not rule on exhaustion, instead deciding only on sufficient interest and forum
Court cites section 38 of the Physical Planning Act for a notice issued in 2023 while the Respondent invokes section 72 of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, 2019, without reconciling the two statutory bases
The judgment records that the Respondent filed no submissions, yet the ruling quotes passages attributed to the Respondent's averments at length
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Director of Planning Compliance & Enforcement, Nairobi City County; Waska Company Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E012 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 4908 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review Notice of Motion dated 22/01/2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4908/eng@2025-06-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.