Lamba & another v Pearls Kids Academy Limited & 3 others (Environment and Planning Petition E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5944 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court cancelled school approvals because neighbours were never consulted, but gave the school four months to fix the paperwork.
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 change of user license and the EIA license were obtained without any public participation
- 2.Whether the operation of the school violates or is likely to violate the right to a clean and healthy environment of the Petitioners
- 3.Whether the reliefs sought by the Petitioners should be granted
- 4.Who bears the costs
Key legal issues
#Whether public participation/notification was required and conducted before issuance of the change of user and EIA licenses
The court held that the Petitioners were entitled to be consulted as affected neighbours and that the Respondents failed to adduce evidence of any stakeholder engagement; the licenses were irregularly and unconstitutionally issued, violating Article 10(2).
Article 10(2) and Section 58(7) and (8) of PLUPA require notification of and invitation for objections from the public. The EIA project report and the change of user application were never produced to show any questionnaires, advertisements or meetings. The onus was on the Respondents to prove procedural compliance; none was presented, so adequate and qualitative public participation could not be corroborated.
Whether operation of the school violates or threatens the right to a clean and healthy environment
Not proved on current evidence: noise levels measured were within permissible limits and no air quality report was filed, so anticipatory orders were refused.
The Petitioners' own reports showed baseline noise within recommended limits, though taken while school was on break. The court found the present emissions not detrimental and held that the Petitioners may return to court or the regulator when noise rises beyond permissible levels. No air quality report corroborated dust/air pollution claims.
Whether the Article 39 right claim and other alleged violations were established
The Article 39 claim and claims under Articles 27, 33, 35, 61, 118, 119, 174, 184, 196, 201 and 232 failed for want of proof.
The Respondents were not claiming the Petitioners' land, so Article 39 was not infringed. No air quality report supported the dust/emissions claims. Allegations of violations must be proved, not assumed; only the public participation violation was demonstrated.
Balancing the Respondents' property rights against the Petitioners' environmental rights in framing remedies
The Respondents retain the right to use their property in an environmentally compliant manner; a blanket prohibition was unjust, and a window to regularize the licenses was granted instead.
The suit property owner holds rights under Article 40 and Sections 24 and 25 of the Land Registration Act. Remedies must balance those rights with the Petitioners' environmental rights; hence no closure order issued immediately but regularisation was ordered with a default discontinuation sanction.
Whether the Ministry of Education infrastructure and safety guidelines point could be entertained
Rejected as raised for the first time in submissions, amounting to trial by ambush.
The standard classroom size under Ministry of Education guidelines was never pleaded or deposed to; parties cannot introduce documents or new issues through submissions.
Legal principles established
#- Where a party impugns the procedure of obtaining licenses, the burden lies on the proponent to prove that public participation and notification were conducted
- Licenses acquired without following the prescribed procedure cannot stand
- Neighbours likely to be affected by a development are entitled to be consulted before licenses are issued
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the 3rd and 4th Respondents irregularly and unconstitutionally issued approvals for change of use and the EIA license in the absence of notification to the public, contravening Articles 1(2), 10(2a, b, c) of the Constitution
- 2.The 1st and 2nd Respondents given 90 days to pull down, remove and clear all advertisement posters inviting the public to enrol their kids into the school and/or stop any admissions
- 3.The 1st and 2nd Respondents granted 120 days to regularize the impugned licenses and in default an order shall issue directing them to discontinue operating the school on the suit premises
- 4.Each party to meet their respective costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under the Constitution (Articles 22, 23, 42, 69 and 70) and Articles 10, 40 read with land and environmental statutes
Relief refused
#Injunction restraining establishment/operation of the school
Anticipatory relief refused as current noise levels are within permissible limits; the court left the door open if levels rise
Declaration that establishment of the school is unconstitutional / violation of Article 39
Article 39 claim not proved; Respondents were not claiming the Petitioners' land
Orders to pull down unapproved structure extensions on the main house
Not granted in the final orders; only prayers b, c and f were issued
Prohibitory order against noise/smoke pollution and damages
Not granted in the final orders
Costs
Since the issues raised in the Petition touched on environmental rights, each party shall meet their respective 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.
Consequently, the EIA and change of user licenses displayed by the 1st and 2nd Respondent cannot stand where the law was not followed and whose effect denied the Petitioner an opportunity to interrogate whether the Respondents had put in safeguards to ensure their right to a clean and healthy environment would not be violated.
The 1st & 2nd Respondents are granted 120 days to regularize the impugned licenses and in default, an order shall issue directing them to discontinue operating the school on the suit premises.
That a declaration does issue that the 3rd and 4th Respondents irregularly, unconstitutionally issued approvals for change of use from residential to commercial/school, and the Environmental impact assessment license in the absence of notification to the public and or public thus contravened Articles 1(2), 10(2a, b, c) of the Constitution.
Since the issues raised in the Petition touched on environmental rights, each party shall meet their respective costs.
It is therefore unjust to prohibit the 1st and 2nd Respondents from utilizing their suit property provided they do it in a pro-clean and healthy environment manner and adhere to the procedural regulations such as conducting quantitative and qualitative public participation before acquiring the requisite licenses.
Issues in the judgment
#The change of user license of 2015 is described inconsistently as being for 'offices & shops' while the 2023 approval is for 'Education (Nursery/Kindergarten)', yet both are treated as approvals for the school
Further affidavits are recited out of chronological sequence (further affidavit sworn 18th March 2025 discussed before further replying affidavit sworn 6th December 2024)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lamba & another v Pearls Kids Academy Limited & 3 others (Environment and Planning Petition E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5944 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 8th April 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5944/eng@2025-08-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.