Ramogo & another v Integrity Holdings Limited
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to stop a neighbour's building because the complainants' own structure also broke planning laws.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the defendant's development violates the relevant physical and land use planning and environmental laws
- 2.Whether the plaintiffs' development violates the relevant physical and land use planning and environmental laws
- 3.Whether the relief of a permanent injunction is merited by the plaintiffs
- 4.Whether the reliefs of special damages of Kshs 140,000 per month, general and aggravated damages are merited by the plaintiff
- 5.What order should be made in relation to costs of the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether both developments violated planning and environmental laws
Both structures were illegal - each party was approved for five floors but erected six and seven floors respectively, with no development approvals for the extra floors and no NEMA approvals exhibited
PW1 conceded approval was for five floors yet six were erected; DW1 admitted approval for five floors but erected seven. Neither party exhibited environmental impact assessment licences or led expert evidence. The court found both developments contravened mandatory physical, land use planning and environmental management requirements.
Whether permanent injunction should issue
Refused - plaintiffs, having built in contravention of the law, do not deserve equitable relief
Injunction is an equitable remedy. The plaintiffs sought protection for a development they themselves erected in breach of planning laws. The court held they must first ensure compliance with the relevant laws before seeking the court's protection.
Whether special and general damages were merited
Refused wholly - the structure was itself illegal and quantum was not proved
Two reasons: the structure for which damages were sought exists as a transgression against planning and environmental laws; and PW1 conceded in cross-examination she did not know the quantum of loss suffered, so the court could not assess the monthly rental loss claimed.
Costs
Each party to bear their own costs as both were in breach of the law
The court departed from the principle that costs follow the event because both parties disregarded physical planning, land use and environmental management laws; neither deserved an award of costs.
Legal principles established
#- A party whose own development contravenes physical planning and environmental laws does not deserve equitable relief of injunction until they regularise their development
- Damages cannot be awarded where quantum is not proved; the court will not pluck figures from the air
- Where both parties are in breach of the law, neither deserves an award of costs
Court orders
#- 1.Suit dismissed for lack of merit
- 2.Each party to bear their respective costs
- 3.Copy of the judgment to be given to the Kiambu County Executive Committee Member in Charge of Physical and Land Use Planning and the Director General of NEMA to enable them take necessary steps to protect the general public
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land use planning and environmental disputes relating to land (Article 162(2)(b) and ELC Act)
Relief refused
#Permanent injunction restraining defendant from continuing construction on parcel 5214
Plaintiffs' own development was itself in breach of planning laws; they must first regularise their development before seeking court protection
Special damages of Kshs 140,000 per month
Plaintiffs' structure was itself illegal and PW1 could not quantify the loss
General and aggravated damages
Structure in respect of which damages sought exists as a transgression against planning and environmental laws; quantum not proved
Costs
Parties shall bear their respective costs (each party to bear their own costs).
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
It is clear from the evidence of PW1 and DW1 that both developments were erected in violation of the mandatory requirements of the physical, land use planning, and environmental management laws.
Whereas the court does not condone disorder, I do not think the plaintiffs deserve an injunction in the present circumstances. They should first ensure that their development complies with the relevant laws before they seek protection of this court.
The court cannot pluck a figure from the air and award the plaintiffs as loss of monthly rental income.
In the end, this suit is dismissed for lack of merit. Parties shall bear their respective costs.
the Kiambu County Executive Committee Member in Charge of Physical and Land Use Planning and the Director General of NEMA shall be given a copy of this Judgment to enable them take necessary steps to protect the general public.
Issues in the judgment
#Plaintiff submissions claim loss of Kshs 80,000,000 not pleaded in the plaint relief as summarised
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ramogo & another v Integrity Holdings Limited", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case 173 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/20364/eng@2023-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.