https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8894

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIAMBU** **HIGH COURT APPEAL NO. E198 OF 2024** **JANE MUKULU KATIKU T/A J. VIEW GENERAL RETAIL………………………………………………………….….APPELLANT** **VERSUS** **THE CHAIRPERSON KABETE SUB-COUNTY ALCOHOLIC DRINKS** **REGULATORY COMMMITTEE………………….…….1ST RESPONDENT** **THE CHAIRPERSON KIAMBU COUNTY ALCOHOLICS DRINKS** **APPEALS COMMITTEE……………………….…….….2ND RESPONDENT** **THE OCS KINGEERO POLICE STATION……………..…………………………..………..3RD RESPONDENT** **THE OCPD KABETE………………………….…………..4TH RESPONDENT** **( Being and appeal from the decision of the Kiambu County Appeals Committee 28th August, 2024 in Ref: KCG/ADC/1/2/24/VOL.ll/43)** **JUDGMENT** 1. The Appellant brought the instant appeal dated 11th October, 2024 against the decision of the Kiambu County Alcoholic Drinks Appeals Committee dated 28th August, 2024 seeking for the following orders **THAT**;- 2. This appeal be allowed by reversing and setting aside the decision of the Kiambu County Appeals Committee dated 28th August, 2024 in Ref: KCG/ADC/1/2/VOL.II/43 and substituting thereof with the following;- 3. An order directing that the proceedings before the County Appeals Committee and service thereof were defective and void ab initio for offending the provisions of Section 65 (3), Section 65 (8) and 66(1) of the Kiambu County Alcoholic Drinks Control Act, 2018. 4. An order directing the 2nd Respondent to issue the Appellant with a General Retail Alcoholic Drinks Licence for the year 2024 with immediate effect upon the Appellant paying the requisite fees. 5. In the alternative, order be issued that the Appellant’s appeal before the Kiambu County Appeals Committee be heard before a differently constituted panel. 6. An order staying the enforcement of the decision of the 2nd Respondent to deny the Appellant’s application for the year 2024 be issued against the 3rd and 4th Respondents and all enforcement agencies of the 1st and 2nd Respondents pending the hearing and determination of this appeal. 7. The Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order restraining the Respondents, their agents, servants and or employees or any person working under them from interfering with the Appellant’s business upon her acquiring the General Retail Alcoholic Drinks License for the year 2024. 8. The costs of the Kiambu County Appeals Committee and this appeal be awarded to the Appellant. 9. The appeal is premised on the following grounds of appeal;- 10. ***The Appeals Committee erred in law and in fact and misdirected itself to accord the Appellant an opportunity to be heard contrary to the rules of natural justice.*** 11. ***The Appeals Committee erred in law and in fact and misdirected itself in failing without justifiable reason to issue the Appellant with a General Retail Alcoholic Drinks License for the year 2024.*** 12. ***The Appeals Committee erred in law and in fact and misdirected itself in failing without justifiable reason to issue the Appellant with a General Retail Alcoholic Drinks Licence for the year 2024 despite having issued her with license for the same premises under the same circumstances in 2022 and granting her a license (despite not issuing her with the same due to internal county delays) in 2023.*** 13. ***The Appeals Committee erred in law and in fact by deliberating for over 3 months after receiving the first appeal from the Sub-county Committee and having a hearing on 14th June 2024 and eventually releasing their decision on the 28th of August, 2024 contrary to section 65 (3) of the Kiambu County Alcoholic Drinks Control Act, 2018.*** 14. ***The Appeals Committee erred in law and in fact and misdirected itself in disallowing the Appellant’s appeal for reasons that her business is in a residential area and that it shares sanitary facilities with California B Club without sufficient evidence to support their said assertions.*** 15. ***The Appeal Committee erred in law and in fact and misdirected itself in failing to maintain records of all its proceedings and in particular records of the purposes for which an appeal was made, the evidence given and the arguments adduced by the parties in Kiambu County Appeals Committee Ref:KCG/ADC/1/2/VOL.II/43 contrary to Section 65 (8) of the Kiambu County Alcoholic Drinks Control Act, 2018.*** 16. ***The Appeals Committee erred in law and in fact and misdirected itself by serving their decision on 19th September, 2024 when the said decision was made on 28th August 2024 thus offending the provisions of Section 66 (1) of the Kiambu County Alcoholic Drinks Control Act, 2018.*** 17. The parties were directed to canvas the appeal by way of filing and exchanging written submissions. Each party filed their respective written submissions as follows;- **APPELLANT’S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS** 1. The Appellant submitted that the Appeals Committee failed to accord the Appellant an opportunity to be heard contrary to the rules of natural justice. The rules of natural justice are fundamental principles that ensure fairness and transparency in decision making processes in judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings. The Appellant relied on ***Republic v Kenya National Examination Council (1997)*** and ***Republic v Judicial Service Commission (2014)***. 2. The Appeals Committee misdirected itself by failing to issue the Appellant with a General Retail Alcoholic Drinks License for the years 2023 and 2024 despite the Appellant fulfilling all the necessary requirements. The Appellant relied on ***Center for Rights, Education and Awareness & 7 Others v the Attorney General Petition No. 16 of 2011*** and Section 70 of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act, 2010 to support her claim for conservatory orders. She also relied on ***Keroche Breweries Ltd v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government & Other [2015] eKLR*** for the contention that predictability and certainty in government’s dealings with the public is a basic requirement and fundamental principle of law. 3. The Appeals Committee erred in disallowing the appeal on the grounds that the business is situated in a residential area, suffers waste management and lacks adequate space. The assertions were not substantiated by sufficient evidence. The Appeals Committee acted out of sheer malice and with disregard to the rules of natural justice. The committee failed to consider that the 2nd Respondent had issued the Appellant with a General Retail Alcoholic Drinks License for the year 2022 only to be denied a license for the years 2023 and 2024 for the premises. 4. The Appeals Committee failed to maintain records of all its proceedings particularly the purposes for which the appeal was made, the evidence given and the arguments adduced by the parties. The Appellant relied on ***Bernard Muthee & Another v Anita Kamba Mwiti [2021] eKLR***. **1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT’S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS** 1. The 1st and 2nd Respondents submitted that the Respondents followed the law in handling the Appellant’s matter. The Respondents cited Sections 23 and 65 (9) of the Kiambu County Alcoholic Drinks Control Act, 2018. The liquor license for the year 2024 expired on 31st December, 2024 and it is not automatic that the liquor licence would be renewed. The licence shall only be granted to an Applicant who has applied for a licence. The Appellant applied for a licence for the year 2024 and the same was denied and reasons given. 2. The Respondents cited Section 20(6) of the Kiambu Alcoholic Drinks Control Act which provides that where a renewal has been refused or a license has been cancelled, an application in respect of that business may be considered by the Sub-county Committee provided that the Applicant has addressed the reasons for such refusal or cancellation. Section 38 (1) of the Act also gives room for the Appellant to reapply for a licence. 3. The Respondent contended that this court cannot issue an order in vain. The Appellant has not demonstrated that she has applied for granting of the licence and met the requirements under the Kiambu County Alcoholic Drinks Control Act. 4. The Respondent stated that the Appellant has not met the requirements for the grant of stay of execution of the decision by the Kiambu County Alcoholic Drinks Appeals Committee. The Respondents relied on ***Carter & Sons Ltd v Deposit Protection Fund Board Civil Appeal No. 291 of 1997*** to support its position that the mere fact that there are strong grounds of appeal would not justify an order for stay. 5. The Respondent also reiterated that this court cannot order a different appeals committee to hear the Appellants appeal because the current committee is established under Section 64 of the Kiambu County Alcoholic Drinks Control Act and the Appellant is not challenging the constitutionality of the Act. The Respondents urged this court to dismiss the appeal. **ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION** 1. The only issue for determination is whether this appeal is merited and deserving of the orders sought. **ANALYSIS** 1. 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.”*** 1. Section 20 (6) of the Kiambu County Alcoholic Drinks Control Act provides that where a renewal has been refused or a license has been cancelled, an application in respect of that business may be considered by the Sub-County Committee provided that the Applicant has addressed the reasons for such refusal or cancellation. Section 64(2)(a) of the Act provides as follows ***;-*** ***“The County Appeals Committee shall be responsible for receiving and hearing appeals from the decisions made by any person or committee under this Act.”*** 1. Section 65 (9) of the Act states;- ***“In making its determination, the County Appeals Committee may––*** ***(a) uphold the decision appealed against;*** ***(b) reverse the decision appealed; or*** ***(c) give direction on the action to be taken.”*** 1. The Appellant alleges that the appeals committee did not accord her an opportunity to be heard. This is however not demonstrated in any documents in the Record of Appeal. The extract of the minutes clearly indicates the presence of the Appellant and her oral submissions. 2. The renewal of the licence was rejected because her business was in a residential area and there were no adequate sanitary facilities. The record indicates that the Appellant confirmed sharing the toilet facility with another business, California B Pub. Under Section 19(2) (e) of the Kiambu Alcoholic Drinks Control Act there is a requirement for evidence of compliance with the laws relating to physical planning and building code, public health and environmental laws. It was therefore well within the appeals committee mandate to dismiss the Appellant’s appeal on the grounds stated in the minutes of its proceedings dated 12th June, 2024. 3. The Appellant claimed that the failure to grant a general retail alcoholic drinks licence was not justifiable. This court’s considered view is that the grant of a licence is a matter of non-derogable rights and that the Appellants needed to meet some conditions for the renewal of her licence. The record indicates that the Appellant did not meet or satisfy the required conditions. The issue of failure to maintain records of proceedings as claimed by the Appellant lacks basis as her Record of Appeal illustrates all the necessary proceedings of the appeals committee. **FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS** 1. Consequently, for the forgoing reasons this court makes the following findings and determination; 2. This Court finds the appeal to be devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed. 3. There shall be no order as to costs. Orders Accordingly. **DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA TEAMS AT VOI THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026** **A.MSHILA** **JUDGE** **In the presence;** Sanja/Millicent – Court Assistants N/A – by the Appellant N/A – by the Respondent