Northern Block Residents Ltd v National Environment Management Authority & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Judicial Review Application E001 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 683 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed residents' attempt to block a Peponi Road apartment development, ruling that public participation and zoning requirements were properly met.
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 Motion is competent?
- 2.Whether an order of Certiorari should issue quashing the Environmental Impact Licence Number NEMA/EIA/PSL/22271 issued on 21st October, 2022 and the Approval of Development Permission -Reference Number PLUPA-COU-000269 dated 28th July, 2022?
- 3.Whether an order of prohibition should issue restraining the 3rd Respondent from continuing with the construction of multi-dwelling residential blocks on Land Reference Number 1870/VIII/112 along Peponi Road?
- 4.Whether the EIA Report and Licence and the Development Permission were issued in contravention of Article 47 of the Constitution, the Fair Administrative Action Act, the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, and its regulations, the Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003, and the applicable Nairobi County zoning framework?
- 5.What are the appropriate orders to issue?
Key legal issues
#Whether the Motion was competent in light of objections on standing, exhaustion and time-bar
The Motion was competent; the same objections had been rejected at the leave stage and could not be re-litigated; internal corporate nomenclature issues did not affect capacity, given broad constitutional standing.
The court held the objections mirrored those canvassed and rejected at the leave stage on 26th September 2024. Questions of internal titles or corporate structure could not deprive the Applicant of standing, particularly given the broad standing conferred by Articles 22, 258 and 70 in environmental matters. The court found the challenged decision-makers are public bodies and the Applicant had locus standi.
Whether public participation preceded the EIA Licence
Yes; the project was medium-risk, requiring only a project report, and consultation through questionnaires and interviews satisfied the applicable framework.
Regulation 17 applies to study reports, not project reports. The development had fewer than 100 units and thus required a Comprehensive Project Report under Part II of the 2003 Regulations. Sixteen questionnaires were administered in the locality, and the report disclosed impacts and mitigation. Failure to consult the Applicant specifically, incorporated only in September 2022, could not vitiate the process; the presumption of regularity covered circulation to lead agencies.
Whether public participation preceded the development permission
Yes; publication in the Daily Nation on 14th July 2022 and an on-site notice met Sections 58(7) and (8) PLUPA and Regulation 15 of the 2021 Regulations.
The Applicant's assertion that the site notice was erected only in May 2023 was unsupported by cogent, credible or contemporaneous evidence. The court applied the presumption of regularity and British American Tobacco principles that the decision-making body bears a positive obligation to ensure meaningful participation, which the newspaper publication and site notice discharged.
Whether the development permission contravened the Nairobi City County Development Control Policy, 2021 (2023)
No; although the Policy is operative and binding pending approval, the suit property was shown by unrebutted expert evidence to fall outside Zone 13B in an unclassified gap.
The court affirmed that the unapproved Policy remains the operative benchmark, following its own decision in Anami and the Court of Appeal's affirmation. However, Planner Daniel Kabiru's unrebutted expert report placed the plot between Zone 13B and Karura Forest, a gap with mixed-use high-rise developments. The Applicant produced no expert evidence to the contrary, and per Anami, zoning is a matter for statutory and expert evidence.
Legal principles established
#- The unapproved Nairobi City County Development Control Policy, 2021 (2023) remains the operative benchmark for zoning and development control decisions until formally replaced or lawfully varied.
- Zoning classifications must be proved by statutory and expert evidence, not impressionistic or unsupported assertions.
- For medium-risk projects requiring only a project report, the law does not require gazettement, newspaper publication or public hearings, provided reasonable consultation mechanisms are undertaken.
- The presumption of regularity applies to official acts and can only be displaced by cogent, clear and uncontroverted evidence.
- Judicial review is primarily concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits, though Article 47 and the Fair Administrative Action Act permit limited merit review.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 30th September, 2024 is dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act, Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Articles 47, 42, 69, 70 and 258 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (Environment and Land Court jurisdiction)
Relief refused
#Certiorari to quash Environmental Impact Licence NEMA/EIA/PSL/22271
Public participation requirements for a medium-risk project report were met; no cogent evidence rebutted the presumption of regularity.
Certiorari to quash Approval of Development Permission PLUPA-COU-000269 dated 28th July, 2022
Notification requirements under Sections 58(7) and (8) PLUPA and Regulation 15 of the 2021 Regulations were satisfied; zoning not contravened.
Prohibition restraining the 3rd Respondent from continuing construction
No illegality established; prohibition could not issue on the facts found.
Declarations that the EIA Report and Licence violated Regulations 17, 21 and 22 of the Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003, Article 47 and the Fair Administrative Action Act
Regulation 17 applies only to study reports, not project reports; participation was adequate.
Declaration that the development permission violated the Zoning Guide, Article 47, the Fair Administrative Action Act, Sections 58(7) and (8) PLUPA and Regulation 15(2)
The suit property was found not to fall within Zone 13B but within an unclassified gap with mixed-use high-rise developments.
Costs
The Notice of Motion dated 30th September, 2024 is dismissed with costs (to the Respondents).
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.
In conclusion, the court is satisfied that the procedural requirements relating to public participation were met in respect of the development permission, and the issuance of an EIA License.
Consequently, the Notice of Motion dated 30th September, 2024 is dismissed with costs.
Until formally replaced or lawfully varied, the policy remains the operative benchmark against which zoning decisions, development permissions, and land-use classifications must be assessed.
Zoning classifications are not a matter of impressionist geography but of statutory instruments and gazetted plans.
In the end the court finds that the Motion as brought is competent.
The evidence by the expert to the efiect that the suit property was not within zone 13B, but was between zone 13B and Karura Forest, which was not classified, was not rebutted by the Applicant or by another expert.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the 3rd Respondent's expert interchangeably as 'Planner Daniel Kabiru' and 'Planner David Kabiru' in consecutive paragraphs.
The 3rd Respondent's affidavits contain an internal contradiction on gazettement/publication of the EIA Report, acknowledged in the judgment: it first deponed the report was gazetted and published in a newspaper, then clarified no such publication occurred.
The name of the Applicant as a party is not expressly printed in the judgment extract; the Applicant is identified only through the depositions of its chairman/director, Tom (Muchiri) Kabuga.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Northern Block Residents Ltd v National Environment Management Authority & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Judicial Review Application E001 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 683 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Judicial Review Notice of Motion dated 30th September, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/683/eng@2026-02-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.