1. The matter for determination is the petition dated 31.01.2025 whereby the petitioner seeks for orders that:
i. A declaration that the arbitrary closure of the petitioner’s business by a Notice dated 23.01.2025 issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner was illegal, unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
ii. An order of certiorari to remove into this Court and quash the decision of the 1st respondent contained in the letter dated 23.01.2025 closing the petitioner’s premises known as Hunters bar and restaurant.
iii. An order of mandamus compelling the Kajiado County Alcoholic Drinks Control Board to afford the petitioner fair administrative process.
iv. An order of mandamus compelling the respondent to open the petitioner’s business premises.
v. A declaration that the acts and/or omissions of the respondents in interfering with the lawful activities of the petitioner, barring his access to the business establishment at Olkeri ward without any reason are null, invalid, arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.
vi. articles 10, 40, 47 and 73 of the constitution.
vii. Damages for loss of business.
viii. A declaration that the conduct of the 1st and 2nd respondents of closing of the petitioner’s beverages outlet contravenes the provisions of
ix. An order of prohibition do issue prohibiting the respondent whether by itself or any other person acting on its behalf from harassing the petitioner in his business.
x. Any other order this Honourable court may deem fit and fit just to grant in the interest of justice.
xi. Costs.
2. The petition was supported by an affidavit of the applicant wherein he stated that he operates a bar and restaurant business known as Hunters Bar and Restaurant situated at Olkeri Ward, Ngong’. He deponed that he holds all the requisite permits, including a valid operating permit running until 31.12.2025, as well as a Food, Drug and Chemical Substances (Food Hygiene) License issued by the County Government of Kajiado. He contended that these permits and licenses authorize him to carry on business lawfully at the said premises.
3. He further averred that he applied for an Alcoholic Drinks Licence from the respondents, who inspected his premises and directed him to pay Kes. 50,000 for the grant of the licence, which he duly paid. However, despite the payment, the licence was not released to him, although the 1st respondent permitted him to continue operating.
4. The applicant maintained that the said permits entitled him to operate without interference, yet on 24.01.2025, he was served with a notice ordering closure of his business. He asserted that the closure was unlawful, unreasonable and procedurally unfair, contrary to Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015. He emphasized that no report of any violation of his licences was prepared or served upon him as required under section 29(a) of the Alcoholic Drinks Control and Licensing Act, nor was he notified of any meeting of the Licensing Board under section 29(b).
5. He pointed out that the closure notice did not amount to a revocation of his licences but was simply a directive to shut down the premises. He concluded that the respondents’ actions were malicious and since the notice did not revoke his licences, the closure lacked any legal foundation and therefore necessitated the intervention of the court.
6. Mr. Wilson Tayiai, the Chief Officer of the 2nd respondent, filed a replying affidavit sworn on 18.07.2025. He averred that while the petition was not frivolous, it nonetheless amounted to an abuse of the court process. He stated that on 19.01.2025, a general meeting was convened by the community to deliberate on emerging issues affecting its members. The meeting was attended by local leaders, including the Chief of Olkeri Location and the Olkeri Ward Early Childhood Development Education Officer.
7. During the meeting, residents voiced concerns about the proliferation of unlicensed bars within the community. It was noted that these establishments had become a nuisance, generating noise pollution and operating within residential areas, some in close proximity to Olkeri Primary School contrary to the zoning and urban planning regulations of Kajiado County. The petitioner’s bar was identified among such establishments that had attracted complaints from residents.
8. He further deponed that the Kajiado North Liquor Licensing team, which was present at the meeting, confirmed that the bars in question had not been approved by the Kajiado Alcoholic Drinks Control Board and was therefore illegal under section 12(a) of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act. He maintained that the closure was justified, stressing that public interest must prevail over private interest. He emphasized that the 2nd respondent relies on public participation forums to incorporate community views into policy and decision-making.
9. The suit was canvassed by way of written submissions.
10. The respondents filed submissions dated 11.11.2025, urging this Court to find that the dispute arose from a decision of the Kajiado Alcoholic Drinks Control Board and the County Licensing Committee. That decision followed sustained complaints from residents of Olkeri Ward regarding the operation of several bars, including the petitioner’s.
11. They explained that on 19.01.2025, a public baraza was convened in Olkeri Ward, attended by community members together with local administrative and county officials. At the meeting, residents raised concerns about the proliferation of unapproved liquor outlets within residential areas. The complaints centered on persistent noise pollution, disruption of family life, and the negative impact on children, particularly due to the proximity of the outlets to Olkeri Primary School. The petitioner’s bar was specifically identified as one of the establishments causing disturbance.
12. Following the baraza, the Liquor Licensing Team confirmed that the petitioner’s bar was operating without the requisite approval or licence from the Alcoholic Drinks Control Board. The respondents contended that this engagement constituted proper public participation as envisaged under the Kajiado County Alcoholic Drinks Control Act and the Constitution, since the views of residents, local leaders, and relevant officers were considered before enforcement action was taken.
13. They further submitted that the applicable law prohibits licensing of liquor outlets within residential areas and near institutions of basic education. The petitioner’s bar, being located within such a prohibited zone, was therefore unlawful. In their view, its continued operation infringed upon residents’ right to a clean and healthy environment and undermined the best interests of children living and learning nearby.
14. On this basis, the Alcoholic Drinks Control Board resolved to close the unapproved bars in the public interest. A closure notice was issued to the petitioner on 23rd January 2025, and enforcement officers were authorized to implement the decision. The respondents maintained that the closure was neither arbitrary nor punitive, but a lawful and proportionate administrative action undertaken in fulfillment of their statutory and constitutional obligations.
15. Addressing the constitutional claims raised by the petitioner, the respondents argued that no rights had been violated. They emphasized that the right to conduct a business is not absolute and may be limited by law where such limitation is reasonable and justifiable. They contended that the closure satisfied the test of proportionality, being grounded in legislation, pursuing a legitimate purpose, and necessary to protect public health, environmental integrity, and the welfare of children.
16. In support of their position, the respondents inter alia relied on Mumara Estate Residents Association v Nairobi County & 2 Others [2015] eKLR, where Mwita J. underscored the need to restrict liquor outlets in residential areas or near schools, particularly where noise pollution and community welfare were implicated. They argued that the facts of the present case mirrored that precedent, as the petitioner’s bar had been a source of disturbance and posed risks to the surrounding community.
17. Ultimately, the respondents submitted that they acted within their mandate, in accordance with the law, and in the broader public interest. They urged the Court to dismiss the petition with costs and uphold the legality of the closure decision.
18. Having considered the pleadings, submissions and authorities relied on, this court holds the view that the following issues fall due for determination:
i. Whether the impugned closure violated the rights of the petitioner.
ii. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the remedies sought.
19. On the first issue, the petitioner urged that the closure was unlawful, unreasonable and procedurally unfair, contrary to Article 47 of the Constitution. He emphasized that no report of any violation of his licences was prepared or served upon him as required under section 29(a) of the Alcoholic Drinks Control and Licensing Act, nor was he notified of any meeting of the Licensing Board under section 29(b).
20. Article 47 of the Constitution on fair administrative action provides:
1. Every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.
2. If a right or fundamental freedom of a person has been or is likely to be adversely affected by administrative action, the person has the right to be give written reasons for the action.
21. Pursuant to article 47(3), Parliament enacted the Fair Administrative Action Act. Under Section 2 of the said Act, "administrative action" is expressed to include:
i. The powers, functions and duties exercised by authorities or quasi- judicial tribunals; or
ii. any act, omission or decision of any person, body, or authority that affects the legal rights or interests of any person to whom such action relates.
22. Furthermore, Sections 4(1), (2) and (3) thereof provides:
1. Every person has the right to administrative action which is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.
2. Every person has the right to be given written reasons for any administrative action against him.
3. Where an administrative action is likely to adversely affect the rights or fundamental freedoms of any person, the administrator shall give the person affected by the decision
a. prior and adequate notice of the nature and reasons for the proposed administrative action;
b. an opportunity to be heard and to make representations in that regard;
c. notice of a right to a review or internal appeal against an administrative decision, where applicable;
d. a statement of reasons pursuant to section 6;
e. notice of the right to legal representation, where applicable; f.
f. notice of the right to cross-examine or where applicable; or
g. information, materials and evidence to be relied upon in making the decisions or taking administrative action.
23. The interpretation of the above is that public bodies are required to observe fair administrative actions and practices as required by that Article. The constitution read together with the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015, imposes upon all public bodies a mandatory duty to observe the principles of fair hearing and natural justice in the exercise of administrative authority.
24. The law requires that any person likely to be adversely affected by an administrative decision must be accorded prior notice, furnished with reasons and granted an opportunity to be heard. Failure to comply with these statutory and constitutional requirements renders such administrative action unlawful, unreasonable, and procedurally unfair, and therefore amenable to judicial review.
25. The Court of Appeal stated in the case of Judicial Service Commission vs Mbalu Mutava & Another [2014] eKLR that –
“Article 47(1) marks an important and transformative development of administrative justice for, it not only lays a constitutional foundation for control of the powers of state organs and other administrative bodies, but also entrenches the right to fair administrative action in the Bill of Rights. The right to fair administrative action is a reflection of some of the national values in article 10 such as the rule of law, human dignity, social justice, good governance, transparency and accountability. The administrative actions of public officers, state organs and other administrative bodies are now subjected by Article 47(1) to the principle of constitutionality rather than to the doctrine of ultra vires from which administrative law under the common law was developed.”
26. Taking the above jurisprudence into consideration, the petitioner urged that he was duly licensed to operate his business, holding all requisite permits including a valid operating permit running until 31.12.2025 and a Food, Drug and Chemical Substances (Food Hygiene) Licence issued by the County Government of Kajiado. It was urged that these permits authorized him to lawfully carry on business at the premises in question.
27. Counsel further contended that the petitioner had applied for an Alcoholic Drinks Licence from the respondents. The respondents inspected the premises and directed him to pay Kenya Shillings Fifty Thousand (Kes. 50,000) for the grant of the licence, which he duly paid. However, despite compliance with the directive, the licence was not released to him. It was noted that the 1st respondent nonetheless permitted him to continue operating.
28. In the case of Richard Bwogo Birir vs Narok County Government & 2 others [2014] eKLR. In that case Ongaya J. stated that:
“The court has found that the claimant was entitled to the due process of law. The court finds that the 2nd respondent dismissed the petitioner in obvious contravention of the enumerated relevant provisions of Articles 10, 41, 47, 50(1) and 236 of the Constitution as read together with Section 41 of the Employment Act, 2007 that entitled the claimant to a notice and a hearing before termination”.
29. It therefore follows that according a party a hearing before taking action against him is no longer a matter of discretion but a firmly entrenched constitutional requirement. Additionally, the right to be heard is inviolable, and that any administrative action taken must satisfy the constitutional test of fairness, reasonableness and procedural propriety. As such, I find that the petitioner’s rights were violated when his business was forced closed while he had met all the requirements set by the respondents.
30. As to whether the petitioner is entitled to the remedies sought, I hereby make the follows orders;
i. A declaration that the arbitrary closure of the petitioner’s business by a Notice dated 23.01.2025 issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner was illegal, unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
ii. An order of certiorari is issued to remove into this Court and quash the decision of the 1st respondent contained in the letter dated 23.01.2025 closing the petitioner’s premises known as Hunters bar and restaurant.
iii. An order of mandamus is issued compelling the Kajiado County Alcoholic Drinks Control Board to afford the petitioner fair administrative process.
iv. An order of mandamus is issued compelling the respondent to open the petitioner’s business premises.
v. A declaration that the acts and/or omissions of the respondents in interfering with the lawful activities of the petitioner, barring his access to the business establishment at Olkeri ward without any reason are null, invalid, arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.
vi. A declaration that the conduct of the 1st and 2nd respondents of closing of the petitioner’s beverages outlet contravenes the provisions of articles 10, 40, 47 and 73 of the constitution.
vii. THAT as a consequence of breach, the petitioner is awarded Ksh 300,000 as General Damages.
i. A declaration that the arbitrary closure of the petitioner’s business by a Notice dated 23.01.2025 issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner was illegal, unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
ii. An order of certiorari to remove into this Court and quash the decision of the 1st respondent contained in the letter dated 23.01.2025 closing the petitioner’s premises known as Hunters bar and restaurant.
iii. An order of mandamus compelling the Kajiado County Alcoholic Drinks Control Board to afford the petitioner fair administrative process.
iv. An order of mandamus compelling the respondent to open the petitioner’s business premises.
v. A declaration that the acts and/or omissions of the respondents in interfering with the lawful activities of the petitioner, barring his access to the business establishment at Olkeri ward without any reason are null, invalid, arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.
vi. articles 10, 40, 47 and 73 of the constitution.
vii. Damages for loss of business.
viii. A declaration that the conduct of the 1st and 2nd respondents of closing of the petitioner’s beverages outlet contravenes the provisions of
ix. An order of prohibition do issue prohibiting the respondent whether by itself or any other person acting on its behalf from harassing the petitioner in his business.
x. Any other order this Honourable court may deem fit and fit just to grant in the interest of justice.
xi. Costs.
2. The petition was supported by an affidavit of the applicant wherein he stated that he operates a bar and restaurant business known as Hunters Bar and Restaurant situated at Olkeri Ward, Ngong’. He deponed that he holds all the requisite permits, including a valid operating permit running until 31.12.2025, as well as a Food, Drug and Chemical Substances (Food Hygiene) License issued by the County Government of Kajiado. He contended that these permits and licenses authorize him to carry on business lawfully at the said premises.
3. He further averred that he applied for an Alcoholic Drinks Licence from the respondents, who inspected his premises and directed him to pay Kes. 50,000 for the grant of the licence, which he duly paid. However, despite the payment, the licence was not released to him, although the 1st respondent permitted him to continue operating.
4. The applicant maintained that the said permits entitled him to operate without interference, yet on 24.01.2025, he was served with a notice ordering closure of his business. He asserted that the closure was unlawful, unreasonable and procedurally unfair, contrary to Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015. He emphasized that no report of any violation of his licences was prepared or served upon him as required under section 29(a) of the Alcoholic Drinks Control and Licensing Act, nor was he notified of any meeting of the Licensing Board under section 29(b).
5. He pointed out that the closure notice did not amount to a revocation of his licences but was simply a directive to shut down the premises. He concluded that the respondents’ actions were malicious and since the notice did not revoke his licences, the closure lacked any legal foundation and therefore necessitated the intervention of the court.
6. Mr. Wilson Tayiai, the Chief Officer of the 2nd respondent, filed a replying affidavit sworn on 18.07.2025. He averred that while the petition was not frivolous, it nonetheless amounted to an abuse of the court process. He stated that on 19.01.2025, a general meeting was convened by the community to deliberate on emerging issues affecting its members. The meeting was attended by local leaders, including the Chief of Olkeri Location and the Olkeri Ward Early Childhood Development Education Officer.
7. During the meeting, residents voiced concerns about the proliferation of unlicensed bars within the community. It was noted that these establishments had become a nuisance, generating noise pollution and operating within residential areas, some in close proximity to Olkeri Primary School contrary to the zoning and urban planning regulations of Kajiado County. The petitioner’s bar was identified among such establishments that had attracted complaints from residents.
8. He further deponed that the Kajiado North Liquor Licensing team, which was present at the meeting, confirmed that the bars in question had not been approved by the Kajiado Alcoholic Drinks Control Board and was therefore illegal under section 12(a) of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act. He maintained that the closure was justified, stressing that public interest must prevail over private interest. He emphasized that the 2nd respondent relies on public participation forums to incorporate community views into policy and decision-making.
9. The suit was canvassed by way of written submissions.
10. The respondents filed submissions dated 11.11.2025, urging this Court to find that the dispute arose from a decision of the Kajiado Alcoholic Drinks Control Board and the County Licensing Committee. That decision followed sustained complaints from residents of Olkeri Ward regarding the operation of several bars, including the petitioner’s.
11. They explained that on 19.01.2025, a public baraza was convened in Olkeri Ward, attended by community members together with local administrative and county officials. At the meeting, residents raised concerns about the proliferation of unapproved liquor outlets within residential areas. The complaints centered on persistent noise pollution, disruption of family life, and the negative impact on children, particularly due to the proximity of the outlets to Olkeri Primary School. The petitioner’s bar was specifically identified as one of the establishments causing disturbance.
12. Following the baraza, the Liquor Licensing Team confirmed that the petitioner’s bar was operating without the requisite approval or licence from the Alcoholic Drinks Control Board. The respondents contended that this engagement constituted proper public participation as envisaged under the Kajiado County Alcoholic Drinks Control Act and the Constitution, since the views of residents, local leaders, and relevant officers were considered before enforcement action was taken.
13. They further submitted that the applicable law prohibits licensing of liquor outlets within residential areas and near institutions of basic education. The petitioner’s bar, being located within such a prohibited zone, was therefore unlawful. In their view, its continued operation infringed upon residents’ right to a clean and healthy environment and undermined the best interests of children living and learning nearby.
14. On this basis, the Alcoholic Drinks Control Board resolved to close the unapproved bars in the public interest. A closure notice was issued to the petitioner on 23rd January 2025, and enforcement officers were authorized to implement the decision. The respondents maintained that the closure was neither arbitrary nor punitive, but a lawful and proportionate administrative action undertaken in fulfillment of their statutory and constitutional obligations.
15. Addressing the constitutional claims raised by the petitioner, the respondents argued that no rights had been violated. They emphasized that the right to conduct a business is not absolute and may be limited by law where such limitation is reasonable and justifiable. They contended that the closure satisfied the test of proportionality, being grounded in legislation, pursuing a legitimate purpose, and necessary to protect public health, environmental integrity, and the welfare of children.
16. In support of their position, the respondents inter alia relied on Mumara Estate Residents Association v Nairobi County & 2 Others [2015] eKLR, where Mwita J. underscored the need to restrict liquor outlets in residential areas or near schools, particularly where noise pollution and community welfare were implicated. They argued that the facts of the present case mirrored that precedent, as the petitioner’s bar had been a source of disturbance and posed risks to the surrounding community.
17. Ultimately, the respondents submitted that they acted within their mandate, in accordance with the law, and in the broader public interest. They urged the Court to dismiss the petition with costs and uphold the legality of the closure decision.
18. Having considered the pleadings, submissions and authorities relied on, this court holds the view that the following issues fall due for determination:
i. Whether the impugned closure violated the rights of the petitioner.
ii. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the remedies sought.
19. On the first issue, the petitioner urged that the closure was unlawful, unreasonable and procedurally unfair, contrary to Article 47 of the Constitution. He emphasized that no report of any violation of his licences was prepared or served upon him as required under section 29(a) of the Alcoholic Drinks Control and Licensing Act, nor was he notified of any meeting of the Licensing Board under section 29(b).
20. Article 47 of the Constitution on fair administrative action provides:
1. Every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.
2. If a right or fundamental freedom of a person has been or is likely to be adversely affected by administrative action, the person has the right to be give written reasons for the action.
21. Pursuant to article 47(3), Parliament enacted the Fair Administrative Action Act. Under Section 2 of the said Act, "administrative action" is expressed to include:
i. The powers, functions and duties exercised by authorities or quasi- judicial tribunals; or
ii. any act, omission or decision of any person, body, or authority that affects the legal rights or interests of any person to whom such action relates.
22. Furthermore, Sections 4(1), (2) and (3) thereof provides:
1. Every person has the right to administrative action which is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.
2. Every person has the right to be given written reasons for any administrative action against him.
3. Where an administrative action is likely to adversely affect the rights or fundamental freedoms of any person, the administrator shall give the person affected by the decision
a. prior and adequate notice of the nature and reasons for the proposed administrative action;
b. an opportunity to be heard and to make representations in that regard;
c. notice of a right to a review or internal appeal against an administrative decision, where applicable;
d. a statement of reasons pursuant to section 6;
e. notice of the right to legal representation, where applicable; f.
f. notice of the right to cross-examine or where applicable; or
g. information, materials and evidence to be relied upon in making the decisions or taking administrative action.
23. The interpretation of the above is that public bodies are required to observe fair administrative actions and practices as required by that Article. The constitution read together with the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015, imposes upon all public bodies a mandatory duty to observe the principles of fair hearing and natural justice in the exercise of administrative authority.
24. The law requires that any person likely to be adversely affected by an administrative decision must be accorded prior notice, furnished with reasons and granted an opportunity to be heard. Failure to comply with these statutory and constitutional requirements renders such administrative action unlawful, unreasonable, and procedurally unfair, and therefore amenable to judicial review.
25. The Court of Appeal stated in the case of Judicial Service Commission vs Mbalu Mutava & Another [2014] eKLR that –
“Article 47(1) marks an important and transformative development of administrative justice for, it not only lays a constitutional foundation for control of the powers of state organs and other administrative bodies, but also entrenches the right to fair administrative action in the Bill of Rights. The right to fair administrative action is a reflection of some of the national values in article 10 such as the rule of law, human dignity, social justice, good governance, transparency and accountability. The administrative actions of public officers, state organs and other administrative bodies are now subjected by Article 47(1) to the principle of constitutionality rather than to the doctrine of ultra vires from which administrative law under the common law was developed.”
26. Taking the above jurisprudence into consideration, the petitioner urged that he was duly licensed to operate his business, holding all requisite permits including a valid operating permit running until 31.12.2025 and a Food, Drug and Chemical Substances (Food Hygiene) Licence issued by the County Government of Kajiado. It was urged that these permits authorized him to lawfully carry on business at the premises in question.
27. Counsel further contended that the petitioner had applied for an Alcoholic Drinks Licence from the respondents. The respondents inspected the premises and directed him to pay Kenya Shillings Fifty Thousand (Kes. 50,000) for the grant of the licence, which he duly paid. However, despite compliance with the directive, the licence was not released to him. It was noted that the 1st respondent nonetheless permitted him to continue operating.
28. In the case of Richard Bwogo Birir vs Narok County Government & 2 others [2014] eKLR. In that case Ongaya J. stated that:
“The court has found that the claimant was entitled to the due process of law. The court finds that the 2nd respondent dismissed the petitioner in obvious contravention of the enumerated relevant provisions of Articles 10, 41, 47, 50(1) and 236 of the Constitution as read together with Section 41 of the Employment Act, 2007 that entitled the claimant to a notice and a hearing before termination”.
29. It therefore follows that according a party a hearing before taking action against him is no longer a matter of discretion but a firmly entrenched constitutional requirement. Additionally, the right to be heard is inviolable, and that any administrative action taken must satisfy the constitutional test of fairness, reasonableness and procedural propriety. As such, I find that the petitioner’s rights were violated when his business was forced closed while he had met all the requirements set by the respondents.
30. As to whether the petitioner is entitled to the remedies sought, I hereby make the follows orders;
i. A declaration that the arbitrary closure of the petitioner’s business by a Notice dated 23.01.2025 issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner was illegal, unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
ii. An order of certiorari is issued to remove into this Court and quash the decision of the 1st respondent contained in the letter dated 23.01.2025 closing the petitioner’s premises known as Hunters bar and restaurant.
iii. An order of mandamus is issued compelling the Kajiado County Alcoholic Drinks Control Board to afford the petitioner fair administrative process.
iv. An order of mandamus is issued compelling the respondent to open the petitioner’s business premises.
v. A declaration that the acts and/or omissions of the respondents in interfering with the lawful activities of the petitioner, barring his access to the business establishment at Olkeri ward without any reason are null, invalid, arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.
vi. A declaration that the conduct of the 1st and 2nd respondents of closing of the petitioner’s beverages outlet contravenes the provisions of articles 10, 40, 47 and 73 of the constitution.
vii. THAT as a consequence of breach, the petitioner is awarded Ksh 300,000 as General Damages.