Mugo & another v Riverside Court Welfare Group & another (Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 983 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that a county cannot penalize a developer for unauthorized building after accepting regularization fees without explaining why the payment was rejected.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether payment of regularization fees constitutes a 'pardon' or approval that nullifies an enforcement notice
- 2.Whether the 2nd Respondent is estopped from enforcing a stop-order after accepting fees
- 3.Whether the County Liaison Committee failed to consider the evidence of compliance
Key legal issues
#Whether payment of regularization fees nullifies an enforcement notice
Payment of fees is a procedural step that does not automatically cure substantive defects; it does not constitute a pardon or approval unless a formal letter of approval is issued
Relying on Kenya Conservative Forum v County Government of Nairobi, the court held that payment of fees to a County Government does not by itself bypass planning standards. Regularization is a process, and payment is merely procedural; substantive defects such as building a multiple dwelling in a single dwelling area are not cured unless a formal letter of approval issues. The Appellants did not present such approval to the Committee.
Whether the County is estopped from enforcing after accepting regularization fees (legitimate expectation)
Acceptance of regularization fees without a Notice of Refusal, while still demanding compliance with the enforcement notice, amounts to unreasonable administrative action under Article 47 and violates the Fair Administrative Action Act
The court reasoned that once an authority accepts a penalty meant to regularize an act, it is generally barred from punishing the party again for the same act unless new breaches occur. To take the money and still demand a stop-work order without refunding the fee or explaining rejection of the plans is unreasonable. For legitimate expectation to arise there must be a clear, unambiguous representation (Republic v KRA Ex parte Mutritiri).
Whether the Liaison Committee failed to consider the evidence of compliance
The Committee erred by failing to examine the nexus between the payment made and the status of the regularization application
The court found the Committee's decision flawed because it did not interrogate whether the regularization payment and pending application had altered the position such that the enforcement notice was overtaken by events. The Committee also directed compliance without the 2nd Respondent demonstrating that the development remained a threat to public safety after accepting the fees.
Legal principles established
#- Payment of regularization fees is only a procedural step and does not by itself grant a right to bypass planning standards; regularization is a process requiring formal approval
- Where an authority accepts regularization fees, it must either issue a Certificate of Approval or give reasons why the payment was insufficient, rather than issue a further enforcement order
Court orders
#- 1.The Appeal is hereby allowed
- 2.The decision of the Kiambu County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee is hereby set aside
- 3.The Enforcement Notice issued by the 2nd Respondent is quashed, on condition that the Appellant provides proof of the final approved Building Plan drawings within 30 days
- 4.If the 2nd Respondent finds the development fundamentally unsound, it must issue a fresh, reasoned report and provide the Appellant an opportunity to be heard before further enforcement
- 5.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Kiambu County Physical Land Use Planning Liaison Committee
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction over the decision of the Kiambu County Physical Land Use Planning Liaison Committee under the Physical and Land Use Planning Act (PLUP), 2019, with the Court noting the supervisory role of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162 of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Compulsion of the 2nd Respondent to grant the necessary licences for commencement of the stalled construction
The quashing of the Enforcement Notice was conditional; the Appellant must first provide proof of final approved building plans within 30 days, failing which the 2nd Respondent may issue a fresh, reasoned report before further enforcement
Costs
Each party to bear their own 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.
In essence, regularization is a process, not just a payment. While the Physical and Land Use Planning Act (PLUP) allows for the regularization of developments, the payment of a fee is a procedural step.
to uphold an enforcement notice after collecting regularization fees without a Notice of Refusal is indeed a violation of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
a. The Appeal is hereby allowed. b. The decision of the Kiambu County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee is hereby set aside.
If the 2nd Respondent find the development fundamentally unsound where it violates the single dwelling plan in the 1st Respondent’s zoned area, they must issue a fresh, reasoned report and provide the Appellant an opportunity to be heard before further enforcement.
e. Each party to bear their own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently refers to the Physical and Land Use Planning Act as both PLUP 2019 and PLUP 2013
The Appellants are described inconsistently - the memorandum grounds and prayer reference the Appellants proving a case against the Riverside Court Welfare Group, yet the Appellants were the Respondents before the Committee and the appeal is against the Committee's upholding of an enforcement notice against them
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mugo & another v Riverside Court Welfare Group & another (Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 983 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Memorandum of Appeal dated 14/07/2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/983/eng@2026-02-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.