Northern Block Residents Limited v Kamau & 7 others; Jubi Africa Limited & 14 others (Interested Parties) (Petition E059 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1156 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed a residents' association's challenge to a Nairobi mall, ruling that complaints of noise and pollution need expert evidence, not just personal testimony.
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 Petitioner has the locus standi to institute the Petition
- 2.Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Petition
- 3.Whether the Petition meets the threshold of a constitutional petition
- 4.Whether the Petitioner demonstrated a violation of rights protected under Articles 10, 35, 42, 47 and 69 of the Constitution
- 5.Whether the issuance of the approvals and licences in the name of the deceased proprietor rendered them invalid
- 6.Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the orders sought
Key legal issues
#Locus standi of a residents' association
Petitioner, a duly registered corporate entity acting through its Directors, has locus standi under Articles 22, 70 and 258 and Article 260
The liberalised standing regime post-2010 allows any person, including a company or association, to institute proceedings enforcing environmental rights. Article 70 requires no proof of loss. A director-signed resolution sufficed to authorise the proceedings.
Jurisdiction and exhaustion of alternative remedies
The ELC has jurisdiction notwithstanding available remedies before NET and the Liaison Committee
Although multiple statutory avenues existed, the Petition sought constitutional redress only the ELC can grant under Article 162(2)(b), Section 13 ELC Act and Section 3 EMCA. The claim was multifaceted, following Benson Ambuti Adega and Nicholas Abidha; the objections were declined.
Adequacy of the constitutional petition
The Petition met the Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold of precision
The Petition identified the constitutional provisions violated, the manner of infringement, the responsible parties, and the remedies sought, satisfying Rule 10 of the Mutunga Rules and the Mumo Matemu standard that precision demands neither formulaic nor exactitude.
Public participation
Sufficient public participation was undertaken for both the Change of User and the EIA licence
The Change of User was advertised in 2013 with no objection; the proponent engaged residents, obtained a conditional no-objection letter from a constituent association, and the concerns informed the licence conditions. The Petitioner's delay in holding its own meeting did not halt the statutory process.
Right to access information (Article 35)
No violation; NEMA promptly responded and invited the Petitioner to peruse the file
The Authority responded within the statutory period to the Petitioner's letter of 14/11/2023, providing details and offering access on payment of fees. The Petitioner's failure to follow up cannot ground a constitutional violation.
Right to a clean and healthy environment (Article 42)
No violation proved; noise, waste and traffic complaints unsupported by expert evidence
The proponent undertook soundproofing confirmed by an uncontroverted Completion of Works Report; NEMA noise surveys found no significant differences. Proof of pollution requires empirical, technical and scientific evidence, which the Petitioner did not adduce.
Validity of licences issued in a deceased person's name
The licence remained valid; the irregularity rendered it voidable at NEMA's discretion
The deceased commenced the process and remained the registered proprietor; ownership of the suit property was undisputed; no evidence showed the naming misled the public or regulators. The development approved was on the licensed parcel.
Legal principles established
#- Public participation was sufficient where affected residents were informed and a constituent association issued a conditional letter of no objection
- Issuance of an EIA licence in the name of a deceased registered proprietor is at most a procedural irregularity rendering the approval voidable, not void
- Pollution must be proved by empirical, technical and scientific evidence, not lay testimony
- A multifaceted claim seeking constitutional redress is not barred by the exhaustion doctrine where quasi-judicial forums cannot holistically resolve the violations
- Demolition orders require expert evidence of non-compliance and are reserved for deserving cases
Court orders
#- 1.The Amended Petition dated 22/10/2024 is dismissed with no order as to costs
- 2.No costs awarded, the Petition being a public interest litigation
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Section 3(3) of EMCA
Relief refused
#Declaration that the development violated the Petitioner's constitutional rights
Petitioner failed to discharge its evidential burden; no evidence of irregularities or violations
Demolition of the commercial complex and restoration of the environment
No expert report establishing non-compliance; approvals and licences remain valid; demolition would be approbating and reprobating
General, exemplary and punitive damages
No violation of constitutional rights established
Costs of the Petition
Public interest litigation
Costs
Petition dismissed with no order as to costs; each party to bear its own costs implicitly
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.
For those reasons, the Amended Petition dated 22/10/2024 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
In conclusion, the Petitioner having failed to discharge its evidential burden under the Evidence Act, I find the Amended Petition unmeritorious and it must fail.
Demolishing a building that is in use is a drastic step that can be ordered only in deserving cases where evidence has been adduced showing non-compliance with the law and raising concerns about the building's structural integrity.
The issuance of the approvals and EIA licence therefore remain valid, provided that the Respondents comply with the conditions set out therein.
Pollution is primarily proved by empirical, technical and scientific evidence and not by lay man opinion testimony or depositions.
The Petitioner ought to have been vigilant in protecting its rights; equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent.
Issues in the judgment
#Duplicate/numbering error in judgment: two consecutive paragraphs are both numbered 87 with near-identical content
Supreme Court decision in Benson Ambuti Adega cited with inconsistent years in the judgment (2020 in most instances but 'Benson Ambuti Adega & 2 others –vs- Kibos Distillers Limited & 5 others [2020] eKLR' versus earlier '–vs- Kibos Distillers Ltd & 5 Others [2020] eKLR' with parties described inconsistently as appellant/respondent)
Inconsistent citation year for Anarita Karimi Njeru: (1979) e KLR in paragraph 30 but (1970) e KLR in paragraph 43
Change of User application date inconsistency: the 1st to 4th Respondents' affidavit says the deceased applied before his demise (2018) and the 8th Respondent says 2013, while the Court found an application in 2006 approved on 29/11/2006 and renewed in 2013
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Northern Block Residents Limited v Kamau & 7 others; Jubi Africa Limited & 14 others (Interested Parties) (Petition E059 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1156 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Amended Petition dated 22/10/2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1156/eng@2026-02-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.