https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8900

Gichuhi (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of Michael Gichuhi Muiru) v Secretary, Kiambu County Appeals Committee & another (Civil Appeal E154 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8900 (KLR) (19 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8900 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kiambu Civil Appeal E154 of 2025 A Mshila, J June 19, 2026 Between Godfrey Kihuha Gichuhi (Suing As The Legal Representative Of The Estate Of Michael Gichuhi Muiru) Appellant and The Secretary, Kiambu County Appeals Committee 1st Respondent The Chairperson, Kabete Sub-County Alcoholic Drinks Regulatory Committee 2nd Respondent (Being an appeal from the decision and directives of the Kiambu County Appeal Committee delivered on 25th July, 2023) Judgment 1.The Appellant lodged a Memorandum of Appeal dated 19th August, 2025 against the decision and directives of the Kiambu County Appeals Committee delivered on 25th July, 2023 seeking that the said decision be set aside and that the Appellant be issued with the requisite bar and restaurant alcoholic drinks licence. 2.The appeal is premised on the grounds that the committee failed to address the issues raised relating to the fact that the Appellant had been issued with the licence to sell alcoholic drinks and food over the years. The committee failed to consider that the reasons for denial of the licence were unfounded. The 2nd Respondent cited reasons such as small kitchen, notorious arrest and lack of toilet facilities for denial of the licence, yet the licence had always been issued in previous years without such reasons as mentioned. The appeals committee did not even check the validity of these reasons. 3.The parties were directed to canvass the appeal by way of written submissions. Counsel for the respective parties filed written submissions in support of their cases as follows;- The Appellant’s Written Submissions 4.The Appellant submitted that the 1st Respondent had a duty to consider the entire history of licensing concerning the Appellant’s business. The decision to deny him the licence for the subject year could not have been made in vacuum, without regard to the consistent practice and approval by the same county government. 5.The denial to grant a licence amounted to a breach of the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The Appellant having been issued with licences for several years on the basis of the same premises and operational setup, had a legitimate expectation that the same standard would be applied. Any deviation from the established practice must be based on rational, justifiable and communicated grounds. The Appellant relied on Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 Others v Royal Media Services Limited & 5 Others (Petition 14, 14A, 14B & of 2014 (Consolidated)) KESC (KLR) (29 September 2014)(Judgment). 6.The Appellant submitted that the committee had approved the licence for previous years and that the denial shows inconsistency on the part of the 1st and the 2nd Respondents. The principles of administrative law demand that a decision-maker must not only act fairly but must also be consistent. The Appellant relied on Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council and Others [2008] 2 EA 300. 7.The 1st Respondent did not conduct site re-inspection to check the validity of the 2nd Respondent’s reasons for the denial of the licence. The Respondent did not give the Appellant an opportunity to be heard. No hearing took place. The Respondents’ decision and procedure did not pass the test of natural justice. A decision-maker cannot simply accept the assertions of one party where the facts are contested. The failure to consider re-inspection denied the Appellant’s right to fair hearing under Article 50(1) of the Constitution and the right to fair administrative action under Article 47(1) of the Constitution. 8.The 1st Respondent did not give any reasons why the history of the Appellant’s licensing was irrelevant and why the premises previously approved were suddenly deemed unqualified. The 1st Respondent’s decision was irrational and unreasonable for failure to consider relevant facts and addressing inconsistencies. The Appellant urged this court to find that the decision of the 1st Respondent was unsustainable, allow the appeal and grant the reliefs sought. The Respondents’ Written Submissions 9.The Respondents submitted that the procedure for renewal of licence under Section 20 (3) of the Kiambu County Alcoholic Drinks Act was applicable. On 23rd May, 2023, the Appellant appealed against the decision of the Sub-county Alcoholic Drinks Regulation Committee to the County Alcoholic Drinks Appeals Committee. The County Appeals Committee heard the appeal and made a determination. The committee had conducted an independent inspection and established that;-a.There were no proper kitchen facilities.b.There were no separate toilets for restaurant from bars. 10.The County Appeals Committee considered the Sub-County Alcoholic Drinks Regulations Committee’s decision and granted the Appellant a General Retail Alcoholic Drinks Licence in accordance with Section 69 (9) of the Kiambu County Alcoholic Drinks Control Act. 11.The Respondents reiterated that this court cannot issue an order requiring the 2nd Respondent to grant the Appellant a Bar and Restaurant Alcoholic Drinks Licence for 2024 because the Appellant has not demonstrated that he has applied for the licence as required by law. The licence sought in this appeal for the year 2023 which has been overtaken by events due to effluxion of time. The Respondent urged the court to dismiss the appeal. Issue For Determination 12.The only issue for determination is whether this appeal is merited and deserving of the orders sought. Analysis 13.This court being the first appellate court it is incumbent upon it to re-evaluate and re-assess the evidence on record and arrive at its own independent conclusion. Refer to the Court of Appeal case of Kiruga v Kiruga & another [1988] KLR 348 it observed that;-“An appellate court has jurisdiction to review the evidence in order to determine whether the conclusion reached upon that evidence should stand.” 14.The Appellant’s application for licence was disapproved by the Kabete Sub-county Alcoholic Drinks Regulatory Committee on 3rd July, 2023 in accordance with Section 27 (1)(b) of the Kiambu County Alcoholic Drinks Control Act. The provision states that the licensing officer on the recommendation of the sub-county committee may refuse to issue a licence and notify the Applicant in writing of the refusal and give reasons within fourteen (14) days. The reasons cited included that the premises had a small kitchen, it was notorious for arrests, sale of alcohol to patrons without food and lack of separate toilets for the restaurant. 15.Aggrieved by the decision of the Sub-County Alcoholic Drinks Regulatory Committee the Appellant filed an appeal at the Kiambu County Appeals Committee according to Section 65 of the Act. The Appeals Committee deliberated the appeal and rejected it. In its opinion it granted the Appellant a General Retail Alcoholic Drinks Licence instead of the Bar and Restaurant Alcoholic Drinks Licence. 16.This court has re-evaluated and re-assessed on record and has failed to be convinced that there is evidence indicating failure by the 1st Respondent to check the veracity of the reasons proffered by the 2nd Respondent for the denial of the licence. Neither has the Appellant demonstrated that he was denied the opportunity to be heard as alleged. The record indicates that the Appellant filed documents in support of his case before both the Respondents. 17.The record also reflects that the 1st Respondent deliberated on the matter and considered that the Appellant was eligible for a General Retail Alcoholic Drinks Licence and not a Bar and Restaurant Alcoholic Drinks Licence. 18.The crux of the Appellant’s case is that the 1st Respondent failed to consider that the Appellant had always been approved for the licence over the years and therefore he had legitimate expectation for issuance of the licence. The principle of legitimate expectation does not apply in this matter. The issuance of a licence is not automatic and the Appellant had to comply with the requirement of the Kiambu Alcoholic Drinks Control Act. 19.In Civil Appeal No 11 of 2018; Pevans East Africa Limited & another vs Chairman Betting Control and Licensing Board & 7 others [2017] eKLR, it was held that a legitimate expectation cannot be an expectation against the clear provisions of a statute. A decision maker cannot be expected to act against the clear provisions of a statute as that would be illegal and a violation of the principle of the rule of law. As legislation that was lawfully enacted, the impugned legislation would override any expectation and; 20.Similarly in Civil Appeal No. 283 of 2014; Pharmaceutical Manufacturing (K) Co Ltd & 3 others vs Commissioner General of Kenya Revenue Authority & 2 others [2017] eKLR the Court held that concepts like estoppel and legitimate expectation cannot be raised against clear provisions of the law. It is not enough that an expectation should exist; it must in addition be legitimate, reasonable and not contrary to the express provisions of the law. 21.This Court is satisfied that none of the grounds raised in the Memorandum of Appeal dated 19th August 2025 are supported by the submissions of the parties and the documents on record. Findings And Determination 22.The appeal is therefore found to be devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Orders Accordingly DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA TEAMS AT VOI THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026A.MSHILAJUDGEIn the presence of;Sanja/MillicentMiss Swaka – for the AppellantN/A – for the Respondent