Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutEP PET E004/25 RG· [2026] KEELC 3160 (KLR)

Maanzoni Owners Association v Bramview Enterprises Limited & 5 others (Environment and Planning Petition E004 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3160 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
19 May 2026
AKA. Y. Koross
4,748 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~19 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a residents' environmental petition because they ran a second, parallel case over the same dispute without telling the court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Machakos (Koross J, delivered 19 May 2026) determines the petitioner's notice of motion dated 12 June 2025 seeking conservatory orders restraining construction of an amusement park on LR No. 19791 within Maanzoni Estate in the Athi-Kapiti Wildlife Corridor, together with investigative and production orders, and the 1st respondent's preliminary objection challenging the court's jurisdiction and invoking the exhaustion doctrine under Sections 129 EMCA and 80 PLUPA. The court first held that prayers 4 and 5 were final in nature and unavailable at the interlocutory stage. On the PO, it accepted the Mukisa Biscuit threshold was met on the jurisdictional grounds, but found the petition multifaceted: Article 35 access-to-information and Article 40(2)(b) property claims, and prayers for mandamus and prohibition, fall exclusively within the ELC, so the petitioner could not be forced to split the claim; the PO was therefore not merited on exhaustion. However, on the abuse-of-process issue, the court found the petitioner had filed an appeal and a nearly identical motion before NET in October 2025 while this petition was pending, without disclosing the parallel proceedings - forum shopping amounting to sub judice and abuse of court process. Consequently the motion and the entire petition were struck out with costs to the 1st and 2nd respondents and the interested party, the PO was dismissed with no orders as to costs, and the file was marked as closed. The third issue on conservatory orders was not reached.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the ELC vis-à-vis statutory environmental and planning fora

Holding

The court has jurisdiction under Article 162(2) and Section 13 of the ELC Act, but NET, NECC and the County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee also have jurisdiction over specific segments; the petition being multifaceted, exhaustion would ordinarily not defeat it

Reasoning

The court accepted that jurisdiction is everything but found the petition multifaceted: Article 35 access-to-information and Article 40(2)(b) property claims plus mandamus and prohibition fall exclusively within the ELC, so splitting the claim among fora would be impractical. The PO was therefore not merited on the exhaustion ground.

p. 18
02

Whether the proceedings are an abuse of court process

Holding

Yes - the petitioner filed an appeal and a nearly identical motion before NET (31 October 2025 / 30 October 2025) while this petition was pending, without disclosing the parallel proceedings, amounting to forum shopping and sub judice

Reasoning

Relying on Satya Bhama Gandhi, Muchanga Investments and Republic v Kariuki, the court held that multiplicity of actions on the same matter between the same parties, forum shopping and non-disclosure of parallel proceedings abuse court process, risking conflicting orders especially since the ELC is appellate over NET.

p. 22

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection must be a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct
  • The availability of an alternative remedy does not necessarily bar constitutional relief; adequacy of the alternative forum must be assessed
  • Pursuing parallel proceedings on the same subject matter before two courts with concurrent jurisdiction constitutes an abuse of court process and offends the sub judice rule
  • A court at the interlocutory stage should not grant final orders absent special circumstances

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 12 June 2025 and the entire petition are struck out with costs to the 1st and 2nd respondents and the interested party, to be borne by the petitioner
  2. 2.The notice of preliminary objection dated 16 September 2025 is dismissed with no orders as to costs
  3. 3.No costs awarded to the other parties as they did not participate
  4. 4.The file is effectively marked as closed
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Maanzoni Owners Association v Bramview Enterprises Limited & 5 others (Environment and Planning Petition E004 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3160 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). EP PET E004/25 RG. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3160/eng@2026-05-19

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.