https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4140

Muiruri v County Government of Nakuru (Environment and Planning Civil Case 2 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4140 (KLR) (2 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 4140 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru Environment and Planning Civil Case 2 of 2024 LC Komingoi, J July 2, 2026 Between Mary Nyambura Muiruri Plaintiff and County Government Of Nakuru Defendant Judgment 1.By the Plaint dated 20th March, 2024 the Plaintiff has filed this suit against the Defendant seeking the following reliefs:a.An order of permanent orders of injunction restraining the defendant either by itself, servants or agents from interfering in any way howsoever with the plaintiff and her tenants occupation, use and enjoyment of their premises situated on parcels of land known as Nakuru/municipality Block 22/4354 (muguga) And Nakuru/municipality Block 22/4355 (muguga).b.Costs of this suit. 2.The Defendant entered appearance but did not file its Statement of Defence. Despite service, it did not participate in the hearing. Evidence Of The Plaintiff 3.PW1, Mary Nyambura Muiruri adopted her witness statement dated 20th March, 2024 as her evidence in chief. She also produced her bundle of documents dated 20th March, 2024 which documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P11 respectively. 4.She testified that she was the registered proprietor of the suit properties Nakuru/Municipality Block 22/4354 (Muguga) and Nakuru/Municipality Block 22/4355 (Muguga). 5.She denied that she was the owner of Nakuru/Municipality Block 22/3671. 6.She further stated that her rental houses have green iron sheets. It was her testimony that the four storey building is the one with the problem. PW1 testified that the problem with the four-storey building was that it had cracks and that the structure was weak. 7.She also stated that the said building faces the road while her rental houses were located behind. It was her case that on 8th March, 2024 she and her tenants were was issued with a notice to vacate the said premises. 8.She stated that the reason for the notice was that the building constructed on Nakuru/Municipality Block 22/3671 had been found to be structurally weak. 9.It was her statement that it was the Defendant’s duty to ensure that the said building met the standard guidelines as provided in the Physical, Planning and Land Use Act, 2019. 10.She added that the Defendant failed in to safeguard the guidelines provided for when it approved the construction on Nakuru Municipality/Block 22/3671. PW1 went on to state that she should not suffer due to the Defendant’s negligence. 11.She urged the court to stop the Defendant from demolishing her rental houses as it was her source of livelihood. 12.It was her case that all her rental houses had been occupied and that she collects rental income of Kshs. 116,000 per month. 13.She urged the court to issue the reliefs as sought in the Plaint. 14.That marked the close of the Plaintiff’s case. 15.At the close of the oral testimonies, the Plaintiff tendered final written submissions. The Plaintiff’s Submissions 16.Counsel for the Plaintiff filed his submissions dated 8th May, 2026 where he identified one issue for determination, whether the Plaintiff has proved her case on a balance of probabilities to be granted the orders sought in the Plaint. 17.He relied on Section 72(1) and (2) of the Physical and Land Planning Act and submitted that the Plaintiff was the registered owner of the two suit parcels. 18.It was his submission that the Plaintiff had since developed the said parcels having constructed her residential home and rental houses from which she derives income. 19.Counsel submitted that prior to undertaking the said developments, the Plaintiff obtained the requisite approvals of the building plans from the Defendant. He argued that the buildings were structurally sound. 20.He went on to submit that the building alleged to be structurally unsound was erected on parcel number Nakuru/municipality Block 22/3671 and does not belong to the Plaintiff. 21.It was his submission that the said parcel was separate and adjacent to the Plaintiff’s properties. He added that the evacuation notice dated 8th March, 2024 issued to the Plaintiff by the Defendant is an attempt to conceal its own negligence in permitting the construction of a structurally unsound building on Nakuru/municipality Block 22/3671. 22.Counsel submitted that the intended enforcement of the evacuation notice by the National Police Service without any plan for resettlement of the Plaintiff and her tenants would cause grave prejudice. He cited the case of Njeri & 8 Others V Nyakiongora & 3 Others; National Land Commission & another (Interested Parties) [2022] KEELC 2366 (KLR). 23.It was his submission that Section 72(2)(c) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act provides the mechanism for the Defendant to deal with structurally unsound buildings. 24.He further submitted that eviction of the Plaintiff without an alternative plan for resettlement contravenes the Plaintiff’s right to dignity as provided under Article 10 of the Constitution. 25.In conclusion, he submitted that the Plaintiff’s evidence was not controverted and that she had proved her case on a balance of probabilities. He urged the court to allow her claim as prayed. Analysis And Determination 26.I have considered the pleadings, evidence on record and submissions and the sole issue for determination is whether the Plaintiff’s suit is merited. 27.It is not in dispute that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the suit properties Nakuru/Municipality Block 22/4354 (Muguga) and Nakuru/Municipality Block 22/4355 (Muguga). This is evidenced from the Certificate of Title issued on 5th August, 2015 and 14th October, 2016 respectively. 28.It is also not in dispute that she was served with a notice to vacate by the Defendant on 8th March, 2024 on the grounds that Nakuru/Municipality Block 22/3671 was structurally unsound. It is also a fact that the reason for the evacuation was to avoid injury and loss of property. 29.It is not in contention that the Plaintiff’s suit properties are adjacent to Nakuru/Municipality Block 22/3671 which is the structurally unsound building. 30.The Plaintiff’s case is uncontroverted. The Defendant failed to enter appearance and or file a statement of defence. The fact that the suit has not been opposed means that the Plaintiff’s evidence remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. However, the Plaintiff is still required to prove his/her case to the required standard of balance of probability. See the Case of Shanebal Limited Vs County Government of Mackakos (2018) eKLR where the court cited the case of Karuru Munyororo Vs Joseph Ndumia Mwrage & Another, Nyeri HCCC No.95 of 1988 where it was held that:-“The Plaintiff proved on a balance of probability that she was entitled to the orders sought in the plaint and in the absence of the Defendants’ and their counsel to cross examine her on the evidence, the Plaintiff’s evidence remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. It was thus credible and it is the kind of evidence that a court of law should be able to act upon”. 31.I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has proved her case as against the Defendant on a balance of probabilities. 32.Accordingly, judgment is entered in her favour as follows:-a.That a permanent injunction is hereby issued restraining the Defendant, either by itself, it’s servants, and or agents from interfering with the Plaintiff and her tenants’ occupation, use and enjoyment of their premises situated on parcel of land known as Nakuru/municipality Block 22/4354 (muguga) And Nakuru/municipality Block 22/4355 ( Muguga)b.That there be no orders as to costs. JUDGEMENT DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAKURU THIS 2ND DAY OF JULY 2026.L KOMINGOIJUDGEIn Presence Of:-Ms. Njoroge for the PlaintiffNo appearance for the DefendantCourt Assistant: Irene/Derrick