Maina v Aura Sable Limited & 2 others (Environment and Planning Petition E002 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3093 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered a Ruiru lounge to stop excessive noise, ruling that residents don't need expert measurements to protect their right to a clean environment.
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 Applicant has met the threshold for the grant of a temporary injunction as established in Giella -vs- Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd
Key legal issues
#Whether a prima facie case of a continuing violation of the right to a clean and healthy environment was established
Yes; the 1st Respondent's own admissions of compliance notices and failed inspections, the proximity of the lounge to residential apartments, and the suspicious timing of the compliance report established a strong prima facie case
The Court relied on the 1st Respondent's own Replying Affidavit admitting a series of compliance notices and failed inspections between November 2025 and January 2026. The compliance report of 20/04/2026 was treated as of evidentiary suspicion because it was produced only after litigation commenced. The Applicant's satellite image showing proximity to residential apartments countered the Respondent's narrative. Following KARA v NEMA, the right to a clean environment is fundamental and business rights do not include a right to pollute.
Whether the absence of expert noise measurements defeats the application
No; expert readings are an unnecessary requirement at the interlocutory stage since Regulation 6 vests measurement powers in the authorities
The 1st Respondent argued the Applicant failed to provide expert noise measurements. The Court held that at the interlocutory stage this would be an unnecessary clog on the wheels of justice, because Regulation 6 of the 2009 Noise Regulations assigns measurement to the authorities and a citizen's subjective experience of intolerable noise suffices to invoke the Court's protection. Noise pollution was characterized as a violation of bodily integrity, not a triviality of loud music.
Where the balance of convenience lies
It favors the Applicant; commercial prejudice is outweighed by constitutional and environmental obligations
The Court applied the precautionary principle and Article 69's emphasis on ecologically sustainable development. If the Respondent is truly compliant, an order to keep noise within legal limits causes no prejudice. Potential commercial loss is temporary and measurable, whereas ecological harm is often irreversible, following Peter K. Waweru v Republic where the environment must prevail over economic interests.
Legal principles established
#- The right to a clean and healthy environment is a fundamental right and the right to operate a business does not include the right to pollute
- A citizen's subjective experience of intolerable noise is sufficient to move the Court at the interlocutory stage; expert noise measurements are not required
- The precautionary principle means commercial prejudice is outweighed by the risk of irreversible environmental harm
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated 13/04/2026 is hereby allowed
- 2.A Temporary Injunction restraining the 1st Respondent, its servants and/or agents from emitting noise pollution or exceeding permissible noise levels under the EMCA Noise Regulations, 2009, pending the hearing and determination of the Petition
- 3.The OCS Theta Police Station directed to provide enforcement assistance to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to ensure the 1st Respondent's strict compliance
- 4.The 2nd and 3rd Respondents directed to conduct fortnightly impromptu noise level monitoring at the 1st Respondent's premises and file a status report every thirty (30) days until the Petition is determined, under the supervision of the Deputy Registrar, Environment and Land Court, Thika
- 5.Costs of the Application to be in the cause of the Petition
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 70 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Section 3 of the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act; Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Rule 23 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013
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.
A Temporary Injunction is hereby issued restraining the 1st Respondent, either by itself, its servants, and/or agents, from emitting noise pollution or in any way exceeding the permissible noise levels as set out in the Environmental Management and Co-ordination (Noise and Excessive Vibration Pollution) (Control) Regulations, 2009, pending the hearing and determination of the Petition.
The Application dated 13/04/2026 is hereby allowed.
The 2nd and 3rd Respondents are directed to conduct fortnightly impromptu noise level monitoring at the 1st Respondent's premises and file a status report in this Court every thirty (30) days until the Petition is determined.
The right to a clean and healthy environment is not a favor from the state or the Respondents, but a fundamental right. Establishments must realize that the right to operate a business does not include the right to pollute the environment or disturb the peace of residents.
noise pollution is a silent killer that afiects mental health and cardiac well-being; it is not a triviality of loud music but a violation of bodily integrity
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment refers to 2nd and 3rd Respondents (including for enforcement directions) but their identities are never stated in the judgment text
The prayers seek an injunction pending the inter partes hearing and pending the hearing of the application, but the final order grants an injunction pending determination of the Petition; the relief granted differs in scope from that sought
Numbering in the disposal orders is irregular (prayer 'i' appears as 'v.' between order i and ii)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maina v Aura Sable Limited & 2 others (Environment and Planning Petition E002 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3093 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 13/04/2026 in a Petition). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3093/eng@2026-05-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.