Achoro Ventures Limited could pass by as any other company, but beneath it is a rich history of roasted meat or nyama choma in Isiolo.

The company owns Safari Bar and Restaurant, which was started by one Pritam Singh, a year after Kenya was declared a republic.

However, Singh is said to have sold it to a Kenyan, Julius Thiribi, before returning to his home country.

Singh is alleged to have ‘invented’ nyama choma’ by pronouncing it as nyama ya kuchoma.

However, the origin of ‘nyama choma’ is now on the verge of extinction owing to developments around it.

Last year, Achoro Ventures sued the Ministry of Interior Principal Secretary and Attorney General, seeking to reverse an order for the closure of bars near schools.

One of the firm’s directors, Alex Thuranira, told the court that the joint has been selling alcoholic drinks, food, and beverages for the past 60 years.

Nevertheless, Thuranira lamented that he learnt through the newspaper on November 12, 2024 that the government had decided to close several drinking outlets, including the Safari Bar.

Thuranira said it was a shocker as Achoro had allegedly not been issued with a prior notice.

“ The first respondent did not formally communicate or issue a prior or adequate notice to the Applicant of the decision that its business entity was to be affected by the subject decision and or directive as necessitated under Section 4(3a) of the Fair Administrative Action Act,2010,” said Thuranira.

At the same time, he argued that his company was not given a chance to either seek a review or appeal internally against the directive.

According to him, the only saviour would be the courts as the government was hell bent to implement the directive.

However, Justice Sophie Chirchir dismissed Achoro’s application.

According to the Judge, the Interior Ministry was just applying the law, thus did not require either issuing a notice or conducting public participation.

 She said that even with the joint having a license, it was not a cushion if an illegality or a breach of the law was established.

“In a nutshell, the Ministry was implementing the law, and issues of prior consultation, public participation or right to hearing do not apply. Those concepts belong either to instances of enactment of a new law or administrative or policy decisions. The application is without merit. It is hereby dismissed,” ruled Justice Chirchir.

According to the Judge, the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act is clear on where liquor premises should be located. She stated that the law has been in existence since 2010.

Justice Chirchir said that the communication by the PS was merely a reminder to the county commissioners to enforce the law.

“It is apparent that the implementation has been wanting. In simple terms, it was a case of an administrator reminding his subordinates to enforce the law as it exists. Further, this was not a new enactment or a policy decision, to bring it under the purview of the fair Administrative Action Act,” she said.

According to her,  it would be untenable to stop a legal process.