Blue Bells Properties Ltd v County Government of Mombasa (Environment and Land Case 29 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 4947 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered Mombasa County to pay a homeowner over Kshs. 96 million for unlawfully demolishing their house without going to court first.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Lawfulness of the demolition without recourse to the Magistrate's Court
The demolition was un-procedural, unlawful, malicious and done in bad faith; the notices themselves warned of proceedings before the Resident Magistrate, yet the Defendant demolished without summons and even before expiry of the 30-day compliance period
Sections 119 and 120 of the Public Health Act require that where the author of a nuisance fails to comply with a notice, the medical officer of health shall cause a complaint to be made before a magistrate, and the court, if satisfied of the nuisance, may order compliance or issue a closing order. The notices issued expressly warned of a summons to the Resident Magistrate. The Defendant instead demolished the house a week before the notice period expired, contrary to the statutory scheme and the rules of natural justice.
Entitlement to special damages of Kshs. 76,000,000/= for reconstruction
Awarded in full, the Plaintiff's unchallenged Bill of Quantities being uncontradicted expert evidence
The Plaintiff produced a Bill of Quantities dated September 2024 and photographs of the house. The Defendant produced no expert report to challenge it. Citing Attorney General v Zinj Limited, special damages for deprivation of property rests on market value guided by the valuation report, and citing Pravin Singh Dhalay v Republic, an uncontradicted qualified expert opinion cannot be rejected.
Entitlement to the claimed Kshs. 22,000,000/= for destroyed household goods
Awarded at Kshs. 15,000,000/= as the items could not be assessed with certainty, though the wrongdoer is not relieved of liability
The Plaintiff produced an undated list of items and photographs of the furnished house; the Defendant did not deny the house was furnished. Difficulty of precise assessment does not excuse payment of damages. The court exercised discretion and fixed a reasonable lump sum below the pleaded figure.
General and exemplary damages for trespass and loss of user
General damages of Kshs. 5,000,000/= awarded; exemplary damages refused
By demolishing the house the Defendant was guilty of trespass and the Plaintiff suffered loss of user. Applying the principles restated by the Court of Appeal in Kenya Power & Lighting Company Ltd v Ringera, exemplary damages require oppressive, cynical conduct in deliberate disregard of the owner's rights with the object of making a gain. Bad faith was established but no gain-making object was shown.
Legal principles established
#- Where a person served with a nuisance notice under Section 119 of the Public Health Act fails to comply, the proper course is a complaint before a Magistrate's Court under Section 120; a county government has no power to demolish the premises itself
- A public body must follow express procedures laid down by legislation and honour the rules of natural justice before taking punitive action
- Special damages for deprivation of property is assessed on the market value of the property, guided by the valuation or expert report tabled where uncontradicted
- An uncontradicted expert opinion from a properly qualified expert cannot be rejected
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Defendant's demolition of the Plaintiff's house on Sub-division Number 1371 (Original Number 836/6) of Section 1 Mainland North, Plot No. 1371/I/MN, Nyali Estate, Mkomoni Road, Mombasa was irregular, unlawful and in contravention of Article 40 of the Constitution
- 2.The Defendant to pay the Plaintiff Kshs. 76,000,000/= being the current cost for reconstruction of the demolished house
- 3.The Defendant to pay the Plaintiff Kshs. 15,000,000/= being the costs of destroyed and vandalized household goods and items
- 4.The Defendant to pay the Plaintiff Kshs. 5,000,000/= as general damages for trespass and loss of user
- 5.Interest on items (b), (c) and (d) at Court rates until paid in full
- 6.The Plaintiff to have the costs of this suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit parcel Subdivision Number 1371 (Original Number 836/6) of Section 1 Mainland North, Mombasa
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Blue Bells Properties Ltd v County Government of Mombasa (Environment and Land Case 29 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 4947 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). MSA. ELC. 29 OF 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4947/eng@2026-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.