Kerema v Government of Makueni County (Environment and Land Case 35 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 6184 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court dismissed a landowner's challenge to a county enforcement notice because he skipped the required appeal to the County Liaison Committee before going to court.
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 court has jurisdiction to determine the validity of Enforcement Notice No. GMC/LMHPP/Emali/9/519/63 where the plaintiff did not appeal to the County Liaison Committee as required by the Physical Planning Act
- 2.Whether the plaintiff's failure to exhaust the statutory appeal procedure rendered the suit incompetent
- 3.Whether the defendant was estopped from issuing the enforcement notice having earlier approved the plaintiff's building plans
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction over challenges to enforcement notices under the Physical Planning Act
The court lacks original jurisdiction where the statutory appeal to the liaison committee has not been pursued; its role is appellate from the committee's decision
Sections 38(4)-(7) and 39(2) of the Physical Planning Act provide a clear appeal mechanism. The plaintiff confirmed he moved straight to court without lodging an appeal. Following Karume and subsequent authorities, the prescribed procedure must be strictly followed, and the court can only exercise appellate jurisdiction from the liaison committee's decision.
Estoppel arising from prior approval of building plans
Not determined; the suit failed on jurisdiction before the merits, including the estoppel argument, could be reached
The plaintiff argued the defendant approved his plans and issued occupation certificates, so it was estopped from enforcing the 2019 notice. The court did not address this on the merits, holding instead that the validity of the notice had been prematurely challenged in these proceedings.
Legal principles established
#- Where a statute prescribes a procedure for challenging an enforcement notice by appeal to the liaison committee, that procedure must be exhausted before recourse to the court
- The ELC may exercise primary jurisdiction over enforcement-notice disputes only where no operational liaison committee exists
- A person who has not appealed under section 38 cannot question the validity of action taken under an enforcement notice on grounds that could have been raised in the appeal
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court Act jurisdiction; the court held its jurisdiction over enforcement notices is appellate only, from the County Liaison Committee under Sections 38 and 39 of the Physical Planning Act (repealed)
Relief refused
#Nullification of Enforcement Notice No. GMC/LMHPP/Emali/9/519/63
The statutory appeal mechanism to the liaison committee was not exhausted, so the notice's validity was prematurely challenged
Permanent injunction restraining demolition of structures on the suit parcels
Suit dismissed for incompetence for failure to exhaust statutory appeal procedure
Costs of the suit
No orders as to costs were made despite the plaintiff seeking costs
Costs
No orders 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.
Accordingly, the suit herein is incompetent and is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
The Plaintifi ought to have challenged the Defendant’s enforcement notice at the County Liaison Committee as this court can only exercise appellate jurisdiction from the subsequent decision thereof.
Where there is a clear procedure for the redress of any particular grievance prescribed by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure should be strictly followed.
The only instance when this court may exercise its primary jurisdiction in disputes relating to enforcement notices is when a county does not have an operational liaison committee.
Issues in the judgment
#Case number not stated in the judgment; only the plaint date of 24th May, 2019 is given
The judgment inconsistently refers to two versions of the Speaker v Karume citation ([2008] 1KLR 425 and [1992] eKLR)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kerema v Government of Makueni County (Environment and Land Case 35 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 6184 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Environment & Land Case (unnumbered on record - plaint dated 24th May, 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6184/eng@2025-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.