Republic v Nairobi City County, Ex Parte Jackson Kiriinya Nairuti
The bottom line
#Nairobi's Environment and Land Court lifted status quo orders protecting a Mirema building but refused to order enforcement of the County's notices.
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 orders dated 29th October 2024 should be reviewed and/or set aside
- 2.Whether the material relied on constitutes new and important evidence within the meaning of Order 45 Rule 1
- 3.Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record
- 4.Whether there is sufficient reason to justify review
- 5.Whether leave should issue to implement the enforcement notices dated 28th November 2022 and 16th October 2024
Key legal issues
#New and important matter under Order 45 Rule 1
The alleged dangerous condition was not new; the County had earlier issued enforcement notices on the same ground, and due diligence was not demonstrated
The court found the building's structural condition was already in issue when the 29th October 2024 orders were made, as shown by the 2022 and 2023 enforcement notices. Further complaints and a later inspection were merely cumulative of a known issue, and the County failed to show the material could not, with due diligence, have been produced earlier.
Error apparent on the face of the record
No error apparent was pinpointed
Applying Nyamogo & Nyamogo v Kogo and Timber Manufacturers, the court held that an error apparent must be obvious and self-evident, requiring no elaborate argument. The County identified no such error on the record, so this ground of review failed.
Sufficient reason for review
Post-order information about cracks, leaning and a subsequent inspection constituted sufficient reason
Despite rejecting the new-evidence ground, the court held that the specific information received after 29th October 2024, being absent from the material then before the court, amounted to 'any other sufficient reason' under Order 45 Rule 1, justifying review of the status quo orders.
Implementation of enforcement notices
Refused; enforcement is the County's statutory mandate to be exercised in accordance with the law
Section 72 of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act governs enforcement and appeals. The court required proof that the notices were valid, subsisting and enforceable, which the review finding alone did not supply, and declined to direct implementation.
Legal principles established
#- Further complaints or an additional inspection do not of themselves constitute new and important matter for review where the underlying issue was already before the court
- Reviewing an order does not automatically permit enforcement of statutory notices; their validity and enforceability must be independently established
Court orders
#- 1.The orders issued on 29th October 2024 are reviewed and set aside
- 2.Each party shall bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5 of the Judicature Act; Article 159(2)(a) and (d) of the Constitution; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Leave to implement the Enforcement Notices dated 28th November 2022 and 16th October 2024
The court was not satisfied the notices were valid, subsisting and capable of enforcement; enforcement remains the County's statutory mandate under Section 72 of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act
Prayer for a site visit to the suit property
Not addressed in the court's final orders; the application succeeded only on the review prayer
Costs
Each party shall bear its 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.
The mere fact that further complaints were received or that an additional inspection was carried out does not, in itself, constitute new and important evidence within the meaning of Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
For evidence to qualify as new evidence for the purposes of review, it must be shown that, despite the exercise of due diligence, it could not have been produced when the order was made.
I find that the subsequent information constitutes sufficient reason within the meaning of Order 45 Rule 1. Accordingly, I find that the Applicant has established sufficient cause to justify the review of the orders dated 29th October 2024.
a) The orders issued on 29th October 2024 are hereby reviewed and set aside. b) Each party shall bear its own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Enforcement notice date inconsistency: 2024 in the motion, 2023 in evidence and disposition
Chronology anomaly: motion dated 22nd April 2026 and ruling delivered 25th September 2026 in a 2024 suit
Court finds no new evidence yet grants review on sufficient reason using the same material
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Nairobi City County, Ex Parte Jackson Kiriinya Nairuti", Case Analysis (2026). ELC EP Judicial Review No. E006 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6200/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.