Zizu Investments Limited v National Environmental Authority & 3 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E024 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5108 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court held three government agencies liable for ignoring illegal dumping beside a Nairobi warehouse, awarding damages and ordering environmental cleanup.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.If the petitioner has met the criteria for a constitutional petition
- 2.If the petitioner is guilty of non-exhaustion doctrine
- 3.If the petitioner has proved breach of any constitutional rights and freedoms to be entitled to the reliefs sought
- 4.What is the order as to costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the petitioner had capacity/locus standi, including absence of a board resolution
The court found the petitioner's capacity falls under Articles 22, 50, 258 and 260; environmental rights are not contingent on land ownership
Article 260 defines a person to include a company; Articles 22, 50 and 258 allow any person to institute proceedings to enforce environmental rights. The right to a clean and healthy environment is enjoyed by all. The nexus between the petitioner, the road, the neighbourhood and the impugned activities was established through complaint letters, an EIA report, and admitted site visits, showing the complaint was neither idle nor academic.
Whether the petition met the Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold of precision
The court found the petition met the Mutunga Rules requirements, since respondents filed comprehensive responses without seeking better particulars
Precision is required to enable the court and opposing parties to understand the case, but here the respondents were able to file and serve comprehensive responses without seeking better particulars, demonstrating the allegations were clear enough. The petition satisfied Rules 4 and 10 of the Mutunga Rules and the CCK v Royal Media Services ingredients.
Whether the petitioner was barred by the doctrine of exhaustion
No - the petitioner had subjected itself to the alternative forums which failed to act, and exhaustion cannot bar genuine constitutional claims
The petitioner raised breach or threat of environmental rights against the very organs charged with enforcing those rights. It had pursued the alternative forums (complaints to NEMA and the County) which failed to act. Exceptional circumstances allow direct resort to court where those exercising statutory mandate abdicate responsibility. The respondents' blame-shifting showed no effective alternative remedy was being offered.
Whether the respondents breached the petitioner's right to a clean and healthy environment
Yes - the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents abdicated their statutory duties despite complaints, an EIA report and expired enforcement notices
NEMA received the EIA report and complaints but did nothing beyond referring the complainant to the County; it did not issue restoration orders under sections 108-109 of EMCA or require an EIA licence. The County issued notices that expired unenforced and its enforcement was not stopped by litigation as claimed. The 2nd respondent showed indifference to road degradation. Their inaction established dereliction and violation of Article 42.
Whether damages were payable
General damages of Kshs. 1 million awarded jointly and severally against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents
Interference with the environment and acts of nuisance attract damages payable by the defaulter. The petitioner lost business and tenants terminated leases following the respondents' neglect. Constitutional remedies vindicate guaranteed rights; Article 70 permits redress in addition to other legal remedies.
Legal principles established
#- The right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 42 is not contingent upon ownership of a specific parcel of land
- Environmental rights under the Constitution are enjoyed by all persons, not only landowners
- The doctrine of exhaustion is not a blanket bar to constitutional petitions alleging breach of rights where the alternative statutory forums fail to act
- A public body that fails to act on complaints and then invokes prematurity of the suit is estopped from relying on non-exhaustion
- Operating an unlicensed dumpsite on a road reserve is a criminal offence under section 87(5) of EMCA and dumping sites require an EIA licence
- Good faith, failure to perform and deliberate abandonment of official responsibility amounts to dereliction of duty
- NEMA bears primary responsibility for preventing pollution and is both investigator and prosecutor of environmental rights violations
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents abdicated their responsibilities and contravened Article 42 of the Constitution, violating the petitioner's right to a clean and healthy environment (prayer (a))
- 2.Declaration that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents denied the petitioner the rights to enjoyment of the property (prayer (b))
- 3.Order stopping the respondents from depositing or permitting depositing of waste at the adjacent plots bordering Road C behind Vision Plaza, Industrial Area within Nairobi County (prayer (d))
- 4.Environmental restoration order issued against the respondents (prayer (e))
- 5.Order directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to unblock the sewages and to erect a road rain water gutter to prevent further environmental degradation (prayer (f))
- 6.General damages of Kshs. 1 million to be paid by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents jointly and severally
- 7.Costs of the petition to the petitioner
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23, 42, 69 and 70 of the Constitution; Environment and Land Court jurisdiction under EMCA and the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013
Relief refused
#Order directing the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents and the interested party to evict all illegal settlements established on road reserves and remove illegal structures, kiosks and vibanda adjacent to the subject plots (prayer (c))
Not among the prayers the court granted; the judgment grants only prayers (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f) plus damages
General damages beyond Kshs. 1 million
Damages limited to Kshs. 1 million payable jointly and severally
Costs
Costs of the petition to the petitioner.
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.
The upshot is I find the petition proved to the required standard the court grants prayers number (a) (b), (d) (e) and (f)
The prayer for general damages is granted to the extent of Kshs. 1 million to be paid by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents jointly and severally. Costs of the petition to the petitioner.
That right in my view is not contingent upon ownership of a specific parcel of land
The doctrine of exhaustion has been said not to be taken as a blanket bar to prevent litigants from pursuing constitutional petitions for alleged breach of rights and freedoms, where alternative statutory remedies or procedures are available
Here therefore is a case where none of the respondents are taking responsibility but blaming the other only to come to court and claim the petition is premature and could have been avoided
Good faith, failure to perform and deliberate abandonment of official responsibility is what amounts to dereliction of duties
The framers of the constitution and God himself ordained environmental rights to be enjoyed by all and sundry
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency on the date of the 1st respondent's letter to the petitioner - pleaded as 2004, then as 2024, then as 2014
Inconsistent citation of the Gichu case - given as KEELC 19222 in one place and 1922 in another, and 'Bamburi County High School' versus 'Bamburi Community High School'
Date discrepancy: submissions by the 1st and 3rd respondents dated 2026 while submissions dated 28.6.2026 appear at paragraph 49 yet the 3rd respondent's response to the petition is dated 17.3.2025; also the judgment is delivered 2026 but the 1st respondent's submissions cited as dated 28.6.2026 with the petition of 2024-2025
The court refers to the 3rd respondent issuing a statutory notice on 4.1.2024 in one passage but 4.4.2024 in submissions recorded in the judgment
Judgment states the petition challenges the 3rd respondent but repeatedly also addresses the 2nd respondent whose mandate the court finds engaged, while the 2nd respondent claimed the road falls under the County - the court's reasons for binding the 2nd respondent on the road beyond mandating it to unblock sewers are thin
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Zizu Investments Limited v National Environmental Authority & 3 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E024 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5108 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Constitutional Petition No. E024 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5108/eng@2026-07-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.