Ending the Unlawful Harassment of Health Facilities and Medical Practitioners by County Governments
Executive Summary
Proposition: Health facilities and medical practitioners regulated by the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council (KMPDC) must not be subjected to duplicate licensing through county trade licences.
For nearly three decades, the medical profession in Kenya has faced persistent systemic disruption, financial extortion, and aggressive administrative harassment from municipal authorities and subsequent county governments regarding the Single Business Permit (SBP). This national policy position paper, commissioned by the Kenya Medical Association (KMA), consolidates the historical, constitutional, regulatory, and judicial dimensions of this issue. The core objective is to deliver an exhaustive reference framework and establish a definitive national path forward to resolve the conflict between county revenue collection mandates and the statutory regulation of healthcare delivery.
The fundamental premise of this paper is unequivocal: the legislative framework governing the Kenyan Republic intentionally isolates professional regulation from commercial trade regulation. Healthcare institutions and practitioners are fundamentally governed by the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Act (Cap 253), which empowers the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council (KMPDC) to execute robust oversight spanning clinical standards, premises inspection, and annual licensing. Subjecting these entities to parallel county trade licensing regimes undermines the statutory architecture, imposes double regulatory burdens, and constitutes an impermissible double taxation framework.
This document serves concurrently as a strategic discussion brief for the Council of Governors (COG), a formal memorandum to the Attorney-General, an advocacy baseline for the National Assembly and Senate, and an immediate legal defense framework for practitioners nationwide. It charts a definitive path away from hostile litigation and toward a unified, automated, and cooperative inter-governmental validation ecosystem.
Chapter 1: Historical Background & Evolution of Trade Licensing
The controversy surrounding the application of trade licensing fees to regulated health professionals is deeply rooted in the pre-devolution administrative transition of the Kenyan state. To comprehend the current structural impasse, it is necessary to chart the evolution of local government revenues from the post-colonial era, through the introduction of the Single Business Permit (SBP) framework under the repealed Local Government Act (Cap 265), to the modern devolved governance model established under the Constitution of Kenya 2010.
Historically, local governance in Kenya was administered through Municipal Councils, Town Councils, and County Councils. These entities relied on an array of local rates, fees, and licenses to fund basic infrastructural provisions and public sanitation routines. During the late 1990s, the Ministry of Local Government sought to streamline what was then an incredibly fractured licensing landscape. Businesses were routinely subjected to multiple cross-cutting local licenses, including traditional trading permits, health inspection permits, and specific municipal authorizations. This fragmentation incentivized rent-seeking behavior, depressed formal economic entry, and placed severe operational constraints on small enterprises.
In response, the central government initiated the Single Business Permit (SBP) framework through institutional reforms beginning in 1998 and formalized widely by 1999. The explicit legislative intent behind the SBP was to substitute the multiple licensing vectors with a singular, uniform annual payment mechanism that would satisfy local trade entry requirements. Crucially, from the inception of the SBP, a categorical policy exception was recognized: professionals whose core vocations were already directly governed, evaluated, and licensed by national statutory regulatory bodies were explicitly excluded from the ambit of local trade permit regimes.
The underlying policy logic was clear: professionals do not engage in standard commercial ‘trade’ as historically defined under merchant law. An advocate, an architect, a professional engineer, or a medical practitioner provides specialized, highly regulated expertise where public safety, ethical baseline management, and technical competency are guaranteed by independent statutory acts. In the case of medicine, the Medical Practitioners and Dentists Act (Cap 253) established a comprehensive centralized framework. The State recognized that forcing a medical clinic or private practitioner to secure a local trade permit would create an unconstitutional paradigm of double licensing—demanding that an individual purchase the right to practice from a local political body when that right had already been granted via a national statutory board.
Despite this clear policy separation, local municipal enforcement wings routinely breached the regulatory perimeter. In approximately 1999, enforcement officers from the then Municipal Council of Thika aggressively targeted private medical clinics, culminating in the arbitrary harassment and unlawful jailing of a registered medical practitioner within municipal holding cells for refusing to purchase a trade license. The Kenya Medical Association immediately intervened, initiating historical litigation under Republic v Municipal Council of Thika and Another ex parte Kenya Medical Association & 5 Others (Misc. Cause No. 782 of 2000). The High Court delivered a landmark ruling, establishing the principle that duplicate licensing of regulated professionals by local authorities was fundamentally unlawful, and that the professional regulation framework enacted by Parliament took complete precedence over municipal trade licensing.
To prevent further localized overreach, the central government through the Ministry of Local Government intervened. On 28th September 2009, the Permanent Secretary for Local Government, Sammy Kirui, CBS, issued an absolute and binding administrative advisory directed to the Town Clerk of the City Council of Nairobi and all local authorities countrywide. The directive explicitly barred local authorities from demanding trade licensing fees from professionals whose practice fell under specific statutory acts listed in the Second Schedule of the Trading Licensing Act. This included Pharmacists (Pharmacy & Poisons Act, Cap 244), Doctors and Dentists (MPDB Act, Cap 253), Nurses (Nurses Act, Cap 257), and Advocates, among others. The circular explicitly noted that local authorities lacked any legal jurisdiction to impose parallel license fees under alternative nomenclatures, warning that doing so amounted to a flagrant violation of law and placed professionals in ‘double jeopardy’ of paying parallel licenses for the exact same professional footprint.
Chapter 2: The Constitutional Framework & Division of Powers
The promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 profoundly transformed the nation’s governance landscape by introducing a bicameral legislative structure and creating 47 distinct County Governments. This structural devolution necessitated a precise, legally robust division of functional competencies and tax-raising capabilities between the National Government and the County Governments, a framework anchored primarily under Article 186 and the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution.
The operational conflict over the Single Business Permit stems from a failure by county revenue authorities to respect the deliberate boundary line drawn between the regulation of economic trade and the regulation of specialized professions. Under the Fourth Schedule, Part 1, the National Government retains absolute, exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of professions and the setting of national health policies. Conversely, under Part 2, Paragraph 7 of the Fourth Schedule, County Governments are assigned functions relating to ‘Trade development and regulation,’ which explicitly includes the administration of ‘trade licenses (excluding regulation of professions).’
The textual insertion of the parenthetical phrase ‘(excluding regulation of professions)’ within Paragraph 7(b) represents a distinct, conscious choice by the framers of the Constitution. It guarantees that while county assemblies possess broad legislative powers to regulate local markets, manage fair trading practices, and levy licenses on standard commercial trade activities, they are absolutely barred from extending their regulatory or licensing framework into the professional domain.
Figure 2.1: Matrix of Constitutional Boundaries under the Fourth Schedule
Furthermore, the revenue-raising powers of the two levels of government are strictly governed by Article 209. Article 209(3) limits the independent taxation capability of counties to property rates, entertainment taxes, and any other tax authorized by an explicit Act of Parliament. While Article 209(4) permits both national and county governments to impose charges for specific services rendered, Article 209(5) introduces a strict constitutional limitation: no county may exercise its taxation or revenue-raising powers in a manner that prejudices national economic policies, cross-county economic mobility, or the national flow of goods and services. By aggressively seeking to compel medical practices to pay for commercial trade permits, counties directly violate Article 209(5), artificially driving up the operational cost of healthcare, threatening the economic survival of private health facilities, and fracturing the national universal health coverage objectives.
Chapter 3: The KMPDC Statutory & Regulatory Framework
The assertion by county governments that private health facilities constitute unregulated commercial enterprises absent a local trade permit ignores the comprehensive statutory oversight executed under national law. The regulation of all medical practices, individual practitioners, and healthcare facilities within the Republic of Kenya is exclusively vested in the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council (KMPDC), established under Section 3 of the Medical Practitioners and Dentists Act (Cap 253).
The KMPDC operates as a highly specialized statutory regulator, executing a multi-tiered oversight mandate that covers every phase of a medical facility’s operational lifecycle. This includes the strict evaluation of professional credentials during registration, the verification of extensive educational prerequisites, and the implementation of a rigorous annual licensing curriculum. To obtain an annual practicing license, a medical practitioner must satisfy continuous professional development (CPD) metrics and adhere to strict ethical codes that surpass standard market regulations.
Crucially, the KMPDC’s mandate is not confined to individual practitioners; it extends directly to the physical premises of health institutions. Section 15 of Cap 253 explicitly outlines the statutory framework for the registration, compliance monitoring, and annual licensing of all health facilities, including clinics, diagnostic centers, nursing homes, and large tertiary hospitals. Before any facility can receive an operational certificate from the KMPDC, it must undergo strict pre-licensing inspections to verify compliance with national clinical standards, space allocations, bio-hazard waste management infrastructure, pharmaceutical storage security, and staffing ratios.
Therefore, when a county government demands a Single Business Permit to authorize the ‘opening or operation’ of a medical facility, it is attempting to execute a regulatory function already completed by a national statutory body. A county revenue officer possesses no technical capacity to evaluate the clinical viability or public safety profile of a medical office. Allowing local authorities to use the SBP framework as a tool to inspect, penalize, or threaten the closure of health facilities violates the legal architecture established by Parliament under Cap 253.
Recognizing the severity of this regulatory overreach, the KMPDC has repeatedly intervened to clarify the legal position. On 17th December 2021, the Chief Executive Officer of the KMPDC, Daniel M. Yumbya, MBS, EBS, issued a formal statutory advisory (Ref No: MPDC/C.Sec/COG/2022/Vol.1/02) directed to the Chief Executive Officer of the Council of Governors, Mary Mwiti. The advisory drew immediate attention to the extensive collection of High Court judgments affirming the absolute illegality of county demands for trade licenses from medical facilities and practitioners. The Council explicitly requested the COG to formally instruct all forty-seven county governments to cease their unlawful enforcement demands, reminding them that under Schedule 4 of the Constitution, professional health regulation is preserved exclusively as a national government function executed through the KMPDC.
Chapter 4: The Judicial Matrix & Jurisprudential Landscape
The jurisprudential landscape in Kenya features a remarkably consistent, long-standing body of case law spanning nearly three decades. The superior courts have consistently protected regulated professionals and their corresponding operational facilities from the extra-jurisdictional financial demands of local authorities and county governments.
To demonstrate the absolute uniformity of this judicial consensus, the following chronological matrix outlines the foundational legal precedents established by the High Court of Kenya:
Among these precedents, the judgment delivered on 27th January 2023 by Hon. Justice M. Thande in Constitutional Petition No. E050 of 2022 (Kenya Medical Association v Nairobi City County Government & Others) is of paramount structural importance. In that matter, KMA directly challenged the constitutional validity of Paragraph 1.5 (Row 12) of the First Schedule to the Nairobi City County Trade Licensing Act, 2019, which purported to levy a mandatory annual business permit fee of KES 15,000 on health clinics, doctors’ surgeries, and dental offices.
Justice Thande delivered an absolute declaration of invalidity, holding that the impugned schedule directly violated Paragraph 7(b) of Part 2 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution. The High Court explicitly noted that because the medical profession is subject to prolonged specialized training and is regulated by a dedicated national statutory body, it is completely exempt from county trade licensing frameworks. The court issued an absolute order of prohibition, permanently barring the Nairobi City County Government and its agents from imposing, demanding, or enforcing trade license fees or SBPs against medical doctors via criminal prosecution or any other administrative mechanisms.
Similarly, in Medina Hospital Limited v County Government of Garissa, the court dealt with a regional finance act that sought to impose annual levies between KES 50,000 and KES 100,200 on private hospitals and pharmacies. Hon. Justice George Dulu ruled that because these facilities already pay substantial operational and licensing fees to the National Government through statutory bodies, any additional licensing fee levied by a county government constitutes clear double taxation. Justice Dulu emphasized that once one level of government secures taxes and formally licenses an operation, the other level cannot introduce a parallel license fee for the exact same clinical footprint.
It is critical to address the judgment in Kenya Association of Private Hospitals v Mombasa County Government (Petition E101 of 2023), delivered on 2nd October 2024 by Hon. Justice Olga Sewe. Certain county revenue offices have misconstrued this single decision as a judicial endorsement of their enforcement campaigns. A precise legal analysis reveals that the Mombasa decision did not overrule the established jurisprudential consensus on double taxation. Instead, the judgment turned strictly on technical pleading standards under the Evidence Act. Justice Sewe explicitly determined that the petitioner in that specific case had failed to adduce sufficient granular evidence to demonstrate a direct text-to-context conflict between the Mombasa County Finance Act and the Constitution based on the specific records presented. The core constitutional exemption protecting regulated professionals remains fully intact, supported by multiple unappealed High Court judgments.
Chapter 5: The Systemic Pattern of Extortion & Harassment
The persistence of the Single Business Permit conflict is not driven by genuine legal ambiguity, but by a systemic, highly problematic pattern of extra-legal administrative enforcement deployed by county revenue enforcement units. Despite explicit statutory prohibitions, absolute judicial injunctions, and binding national advisories, clinical facilities across the country are routinely subjected to aggressive, unregulated enforcement campaigns designed to extort compliance through intimidation.
The tactical methodologies utilized by county revenue officers systematically violate the basic tenets of fair administrative action guaranteed under Article 47 of the Constitution. In a proper, lawful regulatory environment, if a public entity believes a financial obligation is due, it must first issue a formal demand notice in writing, granting the recipient a clear statutory window to verify compliance, raise legal objections, or seek judicial review. County enforcement wings systematically bypass this mandatory step because they are fully aware that a formal, written demand notice issued to an exempt professional entity provides immediate grounds for a High Court injunction.
Instead, counties deploy aggressive enforcement tactics. Units frequently storm medical clinics, diagnostic laboratories, and private hospitals during active clinical hours without prior notification. These enforcement teams are often accompanied by armed security personnel in combat fatigues. Rather than engaging in formal legal dialogue, they target frontline administrative staff, including receptionists, nurses, and laboratory technicians.
The documented accounts of this harassment reveal a deeply concerning picture of administrative overreach:
• Arbitrary Arrest and Abduction of Personnel: As detailed in the sworn affidavits of Petition No. E050 of 2022, enforcement officers routinely arrest administrative staff or relatives of medical practitioners, holding them in county vehicles or detaining them in municipal cells at City Hall until immediate financial payments are made.
• Forcible Closure and Disruption of Emergency Services: Enforcement teams frequently threaten to lock clinical doors or physically seal operational spaces, completely disregarding the immediate threat this poses to critical emergency care, maternity wards, and critically ill patients.
• Unlawful Seizure of Specialized Medical Equipment: In counties such as Embu and Nakuru, revenue officers have attempted to confiscate specialized medical devices, diagnostic computers, and essential office furniture as leverage to force immediate compliance.
• Coercive Financial Manipulation: In a particularly egregious case documented in Nairobi, after extorting KES 15,000 for a Single Business Permit from Om Shanti Clinic, revenue officers intentionally routed the electronic payment receipt through the name of an entirely unrelated commercial corporate entity (Montel Pharmacy Limited) to bypass automated system blocks that prevent the issuance of SBPs to professional clinics. When the practitioner’s family protested, they were threatened with immediate prosecution to force acceptance of the falsified document.
This institutional behavior demonstrates that the problem is fundamentally behavioral rather than legal. Driven by aggressive local revenue targets, county revenue wings operate in complete isolation from their own county legal departments, systematically violating the constitutional rights of healthcare providers.
Chapter 6: Analysis of Existing Government & State Admissions
A critical factor in this dispute is the extensive record of explicit legal admissions made by the State and county governments themselves. Over a twenty-year period, whenever senior administrative bodies or county legal departments have been forced to formally address the Single Business Permit issue in writing, they have consistently admitted that professionals are entirely exempt from these local trade levies.
The historical record features several foundational admissions:
1. The 2009 Ministry of Local Government Circular: Issued by Permanent Secretary Sammy Kirui, CBS, this directive explicitly informed all local authorities that they possessed no legal power to levy trade license fees on regulated professions, characterizing any attempt to do so as unlawful double jeopardy.
2. The 2017 Nairobi City County Executive Directive: On 3rd August 2017, following extensive engagement with the Kenya Medical Association, the Nairobi City County Government formally issued an absolute internal directive to all revenue and enforcement teams. The memo explicitly commanded all field staff to ‘desist from approaching the medical professionals for Trade Permits,’ openly admitting that under Schedule 4 of the Constitution, the county’s licensing jurisdiction is limited to standard commercial businesses, excluding professionals regulated by national statutory rules.
3. The 2021 Kisumu County Legal Clarification: Similar formal admissions were recorded by the Kisumu County legal department, which explicitly acknowledged that individual medical practices and facilities certified by the KMPDC cannot be legally compelled to purchase an SBP.
This history reveals a significant structural disconnect within county administrations. While County Attorneys, County Secretaries, and Chief Health Officers routinely acknowledge the legal reality and issue directives ordering field staff to stand down, these orders are systematically ignored by County Revenue Boards and sub-county enforcement teams. Driven by localized revenue targets, these units operate outside the formal legal boundary lines of the state, creating a chaotic regulatory environment for healthcare providers.
Chapter 7: Policy Analysis: Root Causes of Conflict Persistence
To formulate a permanent solution to this long-standing impasse, it is necessary to move beyond legal critique and analyze the structural, institutional, and economic drivers that cause county revenue wings to systematically violate the law. The persistence of the Single Business Permit conflict stems from a combination of misaligned institutional incentives and systemic vulnerabilities within county administration.
Furthermore, many County Finance Bills are drafted by revenue departments using generic templates, entirely bypassing rigorous constitutional vetting by County Attorneys. When these drafts are passed into law by County Assemblies, they frequently include illegal professional levies, such as the invalidated Row 12 of the Nairobi Trade Licensing Act. Combined with high staff turnover within enforcement units and the deployment of untrained casual enforcement teams, these structural flaws ensure that unlawful demands persist despite clear judicial precedents.
Chapter 8: The KMA Definitive Policy Position Statements
To provide absolute clarity to all state actors, the Council of Governors, the Attorney-General, and the public, the Kenya Medical Association outlines its definitive, non-negotiable national policy positions:
Statement 1: Absolute Recognition of Constitutional Boundaries
KMA fully respects the constitutional authority of County Governments to levy property rates, entertainment taxes, and legitimate trade licenses on standard commercial merchant businesses under Article 209. However, KMA rejects any attempt by counties to extend this licensing authority to specialized health professions and clinical facilities, which are explicitly exempted under Paragraph 7(b) of Part 2 of the Fourth Schedule.
Statement 2: The Primacy of the KMPDC Framework
KMA maintains that the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council (KMPDC) remains the sole, absolute statutory authority empowered by Parliament to evaluate, inspect, register, and license medical practices and health facilities in Kenya. Any parallel county licensing framework constitutes an impermissible infringement on national legislative authority.
Statement 3: Condemnation of Double Taxation and Regulatory Jeopardy
Compelling a KMPDC-licensed facility to purchase a county Single Business Permit constitutes clear double taxation. Healthcare providers cannot be legally forced to pay parallel license fees to two different levels of government for the exact same professional footprint.
Statement 4: Zero Tolerance for Administrative Harassment
KMA strongly condemns the use of armed enforcement personnel, arbitrary arrests, threats of facility closures, and the seizure of medical equipment without formal, written statutory notice. These actions violate Article 47 of the Constitution and directly threaten patient safety.
Statement 5: Unified National Professional Exemption
KMA maintains that the professional exemption covers both individual practitioners and the physical facilities they operate. A medical clinic, diagnostic laboratory, or specialized hospital is the physical delivery mechanism of the profession, not an independent commercial merchant trade business.
Chapter 9: The Proposed National Solution Framework
The Kenya Medical Association recognizes that continuing a cycle of endless litigation is an inefficient use of public and professional resources. To resolve this conflict permanently, KMA proposes a comprehensive, actionable National Solution Framework that protects professional exemptions while providing county governments with a reliable, automated administrative verification pathway.
Recommendation 1: Issuance of a Binding Legal Advisory by the Attorney-General
The Attorney-General of the Republic of Kenya should immediately issue a definitive, binding Legal Advisory to the Council of Governors and all 47 County Governments. This advisory must clarify the strict division of powers under the Fourth Schedule, formally establishing that medical practitioners and KMPDC-registered facilities are entirely exempt from local trade permits.
Recommendation 2: Distribution of a Binding Policy Circular by the Council of Governors
The Council of Governors must issue a mandatory policy circular directing all county governments to immediately cease demanding Single Business Permits from KMPDC-licensed entities and to withdraw all outstanding enforcement notices targeting medical providers.
Recommendation 3: Legislative Standardization of County Finance Acts
Every County Assembly must amend its respective County Trade Licensing and Finance Acts to include an explicit, standard statutory exemption clause: ‘This Act shall not apply to any medical practitioner or health facility duly registered and licensed by the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council under the Medical Practitioners and Dentists Act (Cap 253).’
Recommendation 4: Introduction of the National County–KMPDC Verification Portal
To eliminate the need for manual inspections and field enforcement campaigns, KMA proposes the creation of an automated Inter-Governmental Verification Portal. Rather than issuing individual invoices to practitioners, county revenue offices will be granted secure access to a live database managed by the KMPDC.
Recommendation 5: Establishment of a Structured Register Sharing Mechanism
Instead of targeting individual providers, county revenue offices should verify operational status directly through an authenticated annual register provided by the KMPDC. In any scenario where a county believes a facility operates outside the professional exemption (e.g., running an independent commercial retail shop on the premises), the dispute must be referred to a Joint KMPDC–County Review Committee before any enforcement action can be initiated.
Chapter 10: Inter-Governmental Memorandum of Understanding
To formalize the National Solution Framework, the Kenya Medical Association, in coordination with the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council, stands ready to execute a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Council of Governors. This agreement will rest on seven foundational pillars:
1. Recognition of Regulatory Monopolies: Absolute mutual agreement that the KMPDC retains exclusive authority over the licensing and professional regulation of all medical practices and health facilities within the Republic of Kenya.
2. Immediate Cessation of Field Enforcement: An absolute commitment from the Council of Governors to instruct all county revenue units to immediately halt field enforcement campaigns targeting medical providers.
3. Withdrawal of Pending Litigation: A mutual commitment to withdraw all pending criminal prosecutions and administrative penalties levied against healthcare providers regarding the Single Business Permit.
4. Joint Policy Formulation: The establishment of a standard legislative template to integrate the professional exemption clause into all future County Finance Bills.
5. Portal Implementation Timeline: A binding technical schedule to design, test, and launch the National County–KMPDC Verification Portal within six months of executing the agreement.
6. Establishment of a Joint National Implementation Committee: The formation of a dedicated working group comprising representatives from KMA, KMPDC, and the COG to monitor county compliance and resolve localized disputes.
7. Bi-Annual Review Cycle: A mandatory evaluation meeting every six months to assess the integration of the automated verification portal and ensure comprehensive compliance across all 47 counties.
Appendices & Core Reference Documentation
Appendix A: Comprehensive Historic Timeline (1999–2026)
• 1999: Enforcement overreach by the Municipal Council of Thika leads to the arbitrary jailing of a medical practitioner, sparking the foundational lawsuit ex parte KMA (Misc. Cause 782/2000).
• 2009: The Ministry of Local Government issues a binding national circular explicitly barring local authorities from levying trade fees on regulated professions.
• 2010: The promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya introduces a devolved structure, explicitly excluding the regulation of professions from county licensing powers under the Fourth Schedule.
• 2015: The High Court in Garissa confirms that county trade permit demands on health facilities constitute illegal double taxation.
• 2017: Nairobi City County issues an internal executive directive ordering field staff to stand down and cease targeting medical professionals.
• 2021: The KMPDC issues a comprehensive statutory advisory to the Council of Governors re-affirming the illegality of county trade permit demands.
• 2023: The High Court in Nairobi declares Row 12, Paragraph 1.5 of the Nairobi Trade Licensing Act unconstitutional, permanently prohibiting SBP enforcement against doctors.
• 2024: The High Court in Mombasa rules on Petition E101 of 2023, turning strictly on specific evidentiary pleading standards without altering the broader constitutional exemption framework.
• 2026: KMA publishes this comprehensive National Policy Position Paper to establish a definitive, automated resolution framework.
Appendix B: Model Statutory Exemption Clause Template
EXEMPTION OF REGULATED PROFESSIONS AND HEALTH FACILITIES:
(1) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained within this Act, the requirement to apply for, secure, or pay for a Trade License or Single Business Permit shall not apply to any specialized professional practice or health facility duly registered, certified, and licensed by a National Statutory Regulatory Body established under an Act of Parliament.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt, this exemption applies explicitly to all clinical offices, surgeries, diagnostic laboratories, nursing homes, and hospitals licensed under the Medical Practitioners and Dentists Act (Cap 253).
(3) Verification of compliance status shall be conducted exclusively through the National County–KMPDC Automated Verification Portal or the authenticated annual register provided by the Council. Manual field enforcement, inspection of clinical spaces by revenue officers, and administrative penalties targeting these entities are completely prohibited.
Appendix C: References & Statutory Authorities
11. The Constitution of Kenya 2010 (Article 47, Article 186, Article 209, Article 259, and the Fourth Schedule).
12. The Medical Practitioners and Dentists Act, Chapter 253 of the Laws of Kenya.
13. The Health Act, No. 21 of 2017, Laws of Kenya.
14. The Nairobi City County Trade Licensing Act, 2019 (Paragraph 1.5, Row 12 of the First Schedule).
15. The Mombasa County Trade Licensing Act, No. 5 of 2014 & Mombasa County Finance Act, No. 1 of 2023.
16. Ministry of Local Government Circular Ref: MLG/1335/VOL.VI/54, signed by Permanent Secretary Sammy Kirui, CBS (2009).
17. KMPDC Statutory Advisory Ref No: MPDC/C.Sec/COG/2022/Vol.1/02, signed by Daniel M. Yumbya, MBS, EBS (2021).
18. Judgment Record: Kenya Medical Association v Nairobi City County Government & Others, High Court Petition No. E050 of 2022.
19. Judgment Record: Medina Hospital Limited & Others v County Government of Garissa, High Court Misc. Case No. 2 of 2015.
20. Judgment Record: Peter Ndungu Mbugua & 39 Others v County Assembly of Nyandarua & Others, High Court J.R. No. 8 of 2017.
Dr Simon Kigondu is the emeritus President of Kenya Medical Association and has been following the issue of Single Business Permit from the time he joined the KMA NGC in the year 2000.