Northern Block Residents Ltd & another v Makanjawa Company Ltd & 5 others (Environment and Planning Judicial Review E001 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5285 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court found developers in contempt for building despite orders cancelling their approval, and you cannot resurrect a quashed permit by paperwork.
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 application is incompetent on account of unsealed and non-commissioned annexures
- 2.Whether the joinder of the 6th Respondent was improper
- 3.Whether the Respondents are in contempt of the court orders issued on 17/10/24
- 4.What orders should the court issue
- 5.Costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Unsealed annexures
The objection was overtaken by events because the applicants filed a supplementary affidavit on 19/1/26 with compliant sealed annexures
Rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Rules requires exhibits to be sealed and marked with serial letters; unsealed annexures have no legal value. However, the applicants obtained leave and filed a supplementary affidavit with compliant exhibits. In the interests of justice the court admitted the pleadings despite drafting and procedural inelegance.
Joinder of the 6th Respondent
The joinder of the 6th Respondent was proper; a contempt application may be brought against a person who was not a party to the original proceedings
Following the invalidation of the Contempt of Court Act 2016, superior courts exercise contempt jurisdiction under section 5 of the Judicature Act applying English CPR Part 81, which permits contempt applications against non-parties. The 6th Respondent holds statutory responsibilities under PLUPA and was cited in his official capacity; he had appeared and filed pleadings without objection.
Whether the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents are in contempt
Yes - they wilfully disobeyed the orders by continuing construction while attempting to regularise a non-existent approval
The orders were clear, unambiguous and known to the respondents. The quashed approval ceased to exist in law; regularising it was legally impossible. The 1st Respondent produced no evidence of a fresh PLUPA-compliant application, fees, planning brief, notices or public participation. The minutes of the residents' meeting showed opposition and disruption, and over 90% of attendees opposed the change of user.
Contempt by the 2nd and 6th Respondents
Not established; the 2nd Respondent approved a change of use for a different parcel (LR No 17/262) and denied issuing the authorisation letters
The 6th Respondent denied signing the letters of 4/3/25 and 25/3/25, calling them forgeries. The 1st Respondent relied on those letters and bore the burden of proving their authenticity, but failed to obtain handwriting expert evidence. The photographs relied on were undated and lacked certification under section 106B of the Evidence Act.
Legal principles established
#- The elements to be proved in civil contempt proceedings
- A quashed approval ceases to exist in law and cannot be regularised
- A contempt application may be brought against a non-party to the existing proceedings
- Disobedience of a court order violates the Constitution
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents found to be in contempt of the orders of 17th October 2024 affirmed on 27th February 2025
- 2.The 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents punished for contempt by committal to civil jail and/or payment of a fine in terms of Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act and Order 40 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, including sequestration of assets
- 3.A Mandatory Order directing the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents to purge the contempt by ceasing all construction/renovation activities on L.R. No. 17/261 and comply with the orders of 17/10/24 within 60 days
- 4.If the contemnors fail to purge the contempt, they shall appear before the court in person on 27/10/26 to show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail
- 5.An Order of Prohibition issued to Nairobi City County and its officers from issuing, endorsing or relying on any approvals purporting to authorise works on the suit property unless a procedurally valid change of use is obtained
- 6.A declaration that any approvals issued by the 2nd and/or 6th Respondent to the 1st Respondent are null and void
- 7.An order to the OCS Spring Valley Police Station to ensure compliance with the court orders
- 8.The 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents to meet the costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Contempt jurisdiction under section 5 of the Judicature Act, section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act and Order 40 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Finding of contempt against the 2nd and 6th Respondents
The applicants failed to establish contempt on their part; the 6th Respondent denied signing the approval letters and the 1st Respondent, which bore the burden of proof, failed to verify authorship
Costs
The 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents shall meet the cost of the application
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 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Respondents are hereby found to be in contempt of the orders of this Court issued on 17th October 2024 and affirmed on 27th February 2025, by reason of continuing construction and renovation works on L.R. No. 17/261 (Nairobi Block 218/,770) contrary to those orders.
A Mandatory Order do issue ordering the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents to purge the contempt by immediately ceasing all construction/renovation activities on L.R. No. 17/261 (Nairobi Block 218/770) and forthwith comply with the orders of the court of 17/10/24 within 60 days.
If, for whatever reason, the contemnors fail to purge the contempt as ordered by the court, they shall appear before the court in person on 27/10/26 to show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail for disobedience of the Court orders.
The 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents shall meet the cost of the application.
When a court grants a quash order, the challenged action is effectively voided or set aside. In other words, the document does not exist in the eyes of the law.
the offence is committed not by mere disregard of a court order, but by the deliberate and intentional violation of the court’s dignity, repute or authority that this evinces.
I believe it was. Moreover, the notice states that it was issued in accordance with the court's orders. However, this is inaccurate; the court never instructed the 1st respondent to regularise an approval that had been declared void.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment misstates the date of its own prior judgment as 17/10/25 when it was 17/10/24
The concluding analysis states the respondents are in contempt of orders 'issued on 21/10/25', contradicting the orders of 17th October 2024
Inconsistent parcel references - the suit property is referred to variously as LR No 17/261 and LR No 17/161
Inconsistent publication dates - counsel for the 3rd-5th respondents cite notices published '7/11/25 and 11/3/25' while the affidavit says 7/3/25 and 11/3/25
The 1st Respondent's affidavit dates the formal approval letter '25/3/24' while elsewhere it is 25/3/25
Committal to civil jail ordered without a specified fine or term of imprisonment, left to a later show-cause hearing
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Northern Block Residents Ltd & another v Makanjawa Company Ltd & 5 others (Environment and Planning Judicial Review E001 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5285 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). JR.E001.2023-NBI. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5285/eng@2026-08-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.