Rhapta Road Investments Limited v Mbogua & 2 others (Miscellaneous Application E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3090 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A landowner lost his bid to stop neighbours' construction because Kenya's Environment and Land Court said planning disputes belong to a statutory committee, not the court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present application
- 2.Whether the Applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of temporary injunctive orders
- 3.Who should bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELC over disputes concerning development permissions and planning
The Court lacks jurisdiction where the substratum of the dispute concerns development permissions and planning, which falls within the mandate of the Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee.
The court noted a prior ruling by Hon. Justice Judy Omange in ELC E096 of 2023 striking out a suit over the same subject property for want of jurisdiction, which had not been reviewed, varied or set aside. The substratum of the present dispute remained the legality of construction activities and development approvals touching L.R. No. 21/1/46/1. Fresh acts of encroachment and the alleged suspension of the Liaison Committee did not confer jurisdiction, as no documentary evidence of the suspension was exhibited and the statute's dispute mechanism governed.
Whether conditions for a temporary injunction were satisfied
Not considered because the Court found it lacked jurisdiction.
Having found the Court lacked jurisdiction, the Judge held it unnecessary to consider the second issue on the injunction conditions. This is a consequence of the jurisdictional finding rather than an independent merits determination.
Costs
Costs follow the event and were awarded to the Respondents.
The court applied the general principle that costs follow the event and found no reason to depart from it, given the Applicant's application was struck out.
Legal principles established
#- Where a statute expressly provides a dispute resolution mechanism, suspension of that body does not confer jurisdiction on the Court where the Court has previously pronounced itself on jurisdiction over the same subject matter.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 15th December 2025 is struck out
- 2.Costs of the application to the Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction considered against the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, 2019; Article 40 of the Constitution raised by the 1st Respondent
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from occupying, constructing on, possessing, alienating or committing acts of waste on L.R. No. 21/1/46/1
The Court lacked jurisdiction, the dispute falling within the statutory dispute resolution mechanism under the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, 2019
Direction to the OCS Gigiri Police Station to provide security for enforcement of court orders
Not considered as the application was struck out for want of jurisdiction
Costs
Costs of the application to the Respondents ('costs follow the event')
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.
Accordingly, I find and hold that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present application.
In the result, the Notice of Motion application dated 15th December 2025 is hereby struck out with costs to the Respondents.
such suspension in itself would not confer jurisdiction upon this Court where the statute has expressly provided a dispute resolution mechanism and where this Court had previously pronounced itself on the issue of jurisdiction
Issues in the judgment
#No case title or case number appears in the provided judgment text; the heading is blank and the matter is identified only by the Notice of Motion date.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rhapta Road Investments Limited v Mbogua & 2 others (Miscellaneous Application E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3090 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case (Nairobi) – Notice of Motion dated 15th December 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3090/eng@2026-05-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.