Oakdale Commodities Limited v Ivory Concepts Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E219 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1339 (KLR)

The court held that exhaustion is not applied in abstraction but in light of the dispute's nature, the relief sought, and the court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13 of the ELC Act. The Plaintiff's claim concerned lawfulness of land use, the character of the proposed development, and infringement of the right to a clean and healthy environment, attributed to multiple actors, transcending a technical planning dispute. Section 9(4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act permits exemption from internal remedies, and a single statutory process could not conclusively resolve the issues without fragmenting the dispute.

The Plaintiff argued, and the court accepted, that determination of the objections would require interrogation of contested factual matters such as ownership of the suit property, the character of the proposed development, and whether approvals were lawfully issued, since no defences had been filed. The court held the objections, while raising legal questions on jurisdiction and exhaustion, did not operate as an absolute bar in the circumstances of the case and thus failed the Mukisa Biscuit standard.