https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keadr/2026/2

FORM PLUPA LC-4(b) (r.50) **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **NAIROBI CITY COUNTY** **THE COUNTY PHYSICAL AND LAND USE PLANNING LIAISON COMMITTEE** **COMPLAINT/CLAIM/APPEAL NO. E006 OF 2026** **JACOB GISORE CHENCHA &** **JANET NYARANDA CHENCHA** **(suing as Administrators of the Estate of Francis** **Mokua Nyangau (Deceased)…..…………………………………………………………...1ST CLAIMANT** **DORCAS KEMUNTO CHENCHA …..2ND CLAIMANT** **-VERSUS-** **FRANKLIN SHERIDAN MURUKA,** **JEREMIAH MURUKA, JOSEPHINE HOKA SHISOKA,** **PAMELLA WANGANYA MURUKA (sued as Administrators** **of the Estate of Edwin Jeremiah Muruka (Deceased))………………..1ST RESPONDENT** **PETER WAIHENYA MACHARIA …………………………………………….2ND RESPONDENT** **SIMON MBUGUA 3RD RESPONDENT** **MARINARI LIMITED 4TH RESPONDENT** **-AND-** **COUNTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER (CECM) LANDS, HOUSING,** **PHYSICAL PLANNING, MUNICIPAL & URBAN DEVELOPMENT,** **NAIROBI COUNTY GOVERNMENT 1ST INTERESTED PARTY** **DIRECTOR PHYSICAL PLANNING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT,** **NAIROBI COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2ND INTERESTED PARTY** **COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF NAIROBI 3RD INTERESTED PARTY** **THE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY 4TH INTERESTED PARTY** **NOTIFICATION OF DETERMINATION** The County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee, pursuant to the provisions of Section 80(2) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, 2019, heard the amended Statement of Complaint/Claim/Appeal filed on 29th August 2026 by Jacob Gisore Chencha, Janet Nyaranda Chencha and Dorcas Kemunto Chencha, together with the 2nd Respondent's Replying Affidavit sworn 21st August 2026 and the Claimants' Supporting Affidavit of Dorcas Kemunto Chencha sworn 22nd August 2026, and vide Minute No. 1/24/8/26 dated 24/8/2026 the Committee made a determination as follows: – 1. The first issue for determination of the Committee at this stage is whether the Committee can hear and determine a matter that is also being litigated at the Environment and Land Court over the same set of facts, subject matter and seeking more or less similar relief in both cases. 2. The 2nd Respondent's Replying Affidavit has referred to and annexed a court order issued in **MILIMANI ELCEPCC NO. E033 OF 2026 JACOB GISORE AND DORCUS KEMUNTO CHENCHA V THE ESTATE OF JEREMIAH MURUKA AND PETER WAIHENYA MACHARIA AND 7 OTHERS**, which order relates to the same excavation, construction and development permission dispute concerning L.R. No. Nairobi/Block 63/492 that is the subject matter of the Complaint/Appeal herein. 3. At the hearing of the appeal on 24th August 2026, the committee informed the parties of the said conundrum leading the to various parties making several representations for or against the committee continuing to handle the complaint while there existed a matter at the Environment and Land Court. 4. Leading the appellants’ counsels, Assa Nyakundi, was emptatic that the committee had original jurisdiction to handle the matter despite the envirmment and Land Court being seized of a similar matter between the same parties and pegged on the same set of facts. His opinion was that. His contention was that they were constrained to file the high court matter since the committee cannot address or give orders for compensation of the appelllants. 5. M/s Sheunda, for the 2nd respondent was of the opinion that onve the appellants filed the Environment and Land Court matter, they ousted the jurisdiction of the Committee. To proceed with concurrent hearing will embarrass the judicial system. 6. Mr. Osundwa for the 3rd Respondent was of view that the appellants moved the Environment and Land Court once they obtained orders from this committee. The parties are the same, the subject matter is the same, the photos exhibited are the same, the wording of the pleadings was also similar hence to proceed with the hearing of the hearing before the committee may end up with a likelihood of having conflicting decisions. The parties should be therefore be left to fight in the high court. 7. Mr. Osundwa argued that the appellants should have awaited the outcome of the appeal before proceeding to the high court. He prayed for the appeal to be dismissed. 8. Mr. Achola for the 1st to 3rd interested parties also confirmed the pleadings before the committee and the high court were similar. The prayers were also similar. He therefore prayed for a stay of the matter pending the Environment and land Court matter 9. M/S Getugi for the 4th interested party left the decision on the committee since they were only served on Friday the 21st day of August 2026. 10. Mr. Nyakundi in brief reply confirmed the pleadings are similar. However, he was of the opinion that the high court was already aware of the existence of the matter before the committee and yet proceeded to grants orders in the said matter. According to him this was clear the court sanctioned the continued hearing of the matter before the committee. He prayed that the Committee proceeds to deal with the issue of the enforcement notice and leave the rest of the matters to the Environment and Land Court. 11. From the foregoing set of facts, it is apparent that the Environment and Land Court is seized of the dispute involving the same parties herein, having been instituted by the very Claimants/Appellants before this Committee, and the said Court is yet to determine, inter alia, whether the development on L.R. No. Nairobi/Block 63/492 is lawful, whether construction ought to be halted, and questions of compensation and remedial works. 12. It is our humble opinion that as long as there is a suit pending before the Environment and Land Court over the same subject matter and parties, and interim conservatory orders have been issued in the said matter (Orders of Hon. Justice O.A. Angote dated 3rd August 2026, granting prayers 2 and 3 of the Notice of Motion until the inter partes hearing on 23rd September 2026), then the Committee cannot purport to hear and determine an inquiry touching on the same dispute. 13. We further note that the Claimants/Appellants themselves have conceded, in paragraph 23 of their own Plaint filed in the said Environment and Land Court suit, that this Committee lacks jurisdiction to award compensation for the damage complained of, underscoring that the Environment and Land Court is properly seized of the substantive dispute in its entirety. 14. We therefore decline the Claimants/Appellants' invitation to proceed with a hearing that would interfere with the Environment and Land Court process that is currently alive, insofar as the Complaint/Appeal seeks relief that duplicates or overlaps with the relief sought in the said Environment and Land Court suit, namely restraint of construction/excavation, remedial measures, and compensation. **EXPRESS ADDRESS OF THE ENFORCEMENT NOTICE QUESTION** 1. The Claimants have, urged that the pendency of the Environment and Land Court suit is no bar to this Complaint/Appeal insofar as it concerns the validity, non-withdrawal and continued enforceability of Enforcement Notice Serial No. 5721, this being a distinct statutory function of the Committee under Section 72(3) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, 2019, separate from the civil reliefs sought before the Environment and Land Court. 2. The Committee has considered this submission. The Committee is nonetheless not satisfied that it can, at this stage, sever the question of the enforcement notice's validity and enforceability from the wider dispute. 3. The Environment and Land Court suit places directly in issue whether the development on L.R. No. Nairobi/Block 63/492 was undertaken with lawful approvals, whether the Respondents' construction should be restrained, and whether remedial or compensatory orders should issue in consequence of the same excavation and construction works that gave rise to Enforcement Notice No. 5721. 4. Any determination by this Committee on the continued validity or enforcement of the said Notice would necessarily require findings on the lawfulness of the development, which are the very findings the Environment and Land Court is seized of and yet to make a determination. 5. A determination by this Committee on the enforcement notice, made in isolation, therefore carries a real risk of conflicting with or pre-empting the findings of the Environment and Land Court. 6. Accordingly, while the Committee accepts that Section 72(3) enforcement functions are ordinarily within its statutory mandate, it finds that on the particular facts of this matter, the enforcement notice question is not severable from the subject matter already before the Environment and Land Court, and cannot be determined without touching on issues that Court is yet to decide. **DETERMINATION** 1. The upshot of the above is that this Complaint/Appeal, that: 1. The question of the continued validity and enforceability of Enforcement Notice No. 5721, is hereby stayed in its entirety pending the hearing and determination of **MILIMANI ELCEPCC NO. E033 OF 2026 JACOB GISORE AND DORCUS KEMUNTO CHENCHA V THE ESTATE OF JEREMIAH MURUKA AND PETER WAIHENYA MACHARIA AND 7 OTHERS**, or upon such other or further directions as may be issued by the Environment and Land Court 2. This stay is granted without prejudice to any party's right to apply to this Committee to lift the stay, in whole or in part, should the Environment and Land Court expressly direct the committee to determine the question of the enforcement notice's validity and enforceability. Dated at NAIROBI this .....24TH ........... day of .......AUGUST..................... 2026. Name: ............................................................................................ Sign: ............................................................................................... Seal: ............................................................................................... **ROGERS MONDA** **CHAIRPERSON,** **NAIROBI COUNTY PHYSICAL AND LAND USE PLANNING LIAISON COMMITTEE**