AOO & 6 others v Trustee, Nakuru Golf Club & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E013 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4658 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed residents' bid to silence Nakuru Golf Club's music because their phone-app noise readings weren't legally valid evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction over the Petition notwithstanding the exhaustion doctrine
The court found it has requisite jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13(3) of the Environment and Land Court Act, which preclude nothing from redress of threats to the right to a clean and healthy environment
The court cited Section 13(3) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011 which provides that nothing in the Act precludes the Court from hearing applications for redress of a denial, violation or infringement of, or threat to, rights relating to a clean and healthy environment under Articles 42, 69 and 70. The court also noted that the alternative forum may lack jurisdiction to grant constitutional conservatory orders, and held that the court has the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the Petition, while cautioning against couching pleadings to avoid alternative forums.
Whether the Applicants met the threshold for conservatory orders
The Applicants failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success because the noise measurements were taken using the 1st Petitioner's personal phone application and not by the relevant lead agency (NEMA) as required under Regulation 6 of the Noise Regulations, 2009
The court found that the Applicants did not approach the 3rd Respondent (NEMA) to offer expertise in measuring noise pollution, that no noise assessment report by NEMA was on record despite its mandate under the Noise Regulations, 2009, and that the phone-app readings could not establish that permissible limits were exceeded. The prima facie case requirement was therefore not satisfied and the application was dismissed with costs in the cause.
Legal principles established
#- The availability of an alternative remedy does not necessarily bar constitutional relief; the court scrutinizes the adequacy of the alternative remedy and the purpose for which constitutional relief is sought
- An applicant for conservatory orders must demonstrate a prima facie case with a likelihood of success, likelihood of prejudice absent the order, and that the order is in the public interest
- Under Regulation 6 of the Noise Regulations, 2009, noise measurements shall be taken by the relevant lead agency or a person duly authorized by the Authority knowledgeable in the proper use of the measuring equipment
- Where a dispute resolution mechanism exists outside courts, it must be exhausted before the jurisdiction of the courts is invoked
Court orders
#- 1.The Applicants' application dated 5th December, 2025 seeking conservatory orders is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution; Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011; Articles 42, 69 and 70 of the Constitution; Section 3(3) of EMCA
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "AOO & 6 others v Trustee, Nakuru Golf Club & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E013 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4658 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4658/eng@2026-07-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.