Wanjala Sio & Machira Kibanya (Suing on their own behalf and on behalf of Daisy Road Residents, Runda) v Alexander Mburu Mungai & 2 others
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court declared a Runda construction unlawful for lacking development permission, ordering the owner to stop building and comply with the county's demolition notice.
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 construction undertaken on L.R. No. Nairobi Block 99/183 (12872/183), House No. 183 was undertaken in contravention of the applicable planning and environmental laws and is therefore unlawful
- 2.Whether the Petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought
- 3.Who should bear the costs of the Petition
Key legal issues
#Legality of construction without development permission
The construction was unlawful as no development permission, approved building plans or other development-control approval was demonstrated, and the County's Stay Order and Enforcement Notice went unchallenged
Section 57(1) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act prohibits development without permission from the County Executive Committee Member. No permission was placed before the Court. The County issued a Stay Order (24 February 2025) and an Enforcement Notice (17 September 2025) requiring demolition, which the Respondent ignored and never challenged on appeal. The Petitioners' uncontroverted evidence established the development fell outside the development-control framework.
Whether failure to undertake an EIA and obtain a licence was established
Declined - the Court could not make a definitive finding that a full EIA study and licence were mandatory
Section 58 of EMCA requires a project report for Second Schedule projects, and an EIA study where significant environmental impact is likely. However, the Court held that whether an EIA was mandatory depends on the nature, scale and classification of the project, and the material did not sufficiently particularise the development. It found only that no evidence of compliance with any applicable environmental assessment requirements was presented.
Appropriate remedies for unlawful development
Declarations issued, cessation of development ordered, and compliance with the existing Enforcement Notice directed; demolition/restoration left to the enforcement process
Article 23(3) empowers appropriate relief, and sections 57(3) and 72 of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act contemplate restoration and demolition. Since the 1st Interested Party had already issued a Stay Order and Enforcement Notice that were never varied, suspended or set aside, the Court granted declaratory relief and directed cessation and compliance with the enforcement process rather than independently ordering demolition.
Legal principles established
#- Development permission is a statutory prerequisite to the lawful commencement of development within a county under section 57(1) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act
- Even in an unopposed petition, the petitioner must still establish the allegations to the required standard
- Mere construction does not, without more, establish that a full EIA study and licence were required; that depends on the nature, scale and classification of the project
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the construction undertaken on L.R. No. Nairobi Block 99/183 (12872/183), House No. 183 without the requisite development permission was unlawful
- 2.A declaration that the Respondent's commencement and continuation of the development without demonstrating compliance with the applicable development-control requirements was contrary to the Physical and Land Use Planning Act
- 3.The Respondent is directed to cease any further development on L.R. No. Nairobi Block 99/183 (12872/183), House No. 183
- 4.The Respondent shall comply with the Enforcement Notice dated 17th September 2025 issued by the 1st Interested Party in accordance with the applicable law
- 5.Each party shall bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23 and 165 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (constitutional petition under Articles 2, 3, 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 40, 60, 61 and 64)
Relief refused
#Declaration that the Respondent's failure to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment study and obtain an EIA licence infringed the Petitioners' constitutional rights
The material did not sufficiently establish the nature and classification of the development to determine whether a full EIA study and licence were mandatory
Order directing the Respondent to demolish/remove the buildings and restore the land to its former condition
The Court instead directed compliance with the Enforcement Notice already issued by the 1st Interested Party
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs.
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 statutory position is therefore clear: development permission is a prerequisite to the lawful commencement of development.
Although the Petition proceeded unopposed, the Court must nevertheless determine whether the material placed before it establishes those allegations to the required standard.
the mere fact that construction is being undertaken does not, without more, establish that a full environmental impact assessment study and licence were required.
There is no material before the Court showing that the Enforcement Notice issued against the Respondent was challenged, suspended or set aside.
f) Each party shall bear its own costs.
e) The prayer relating to failure to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment study and obtain an Environmental Impact Assessment licence is declined.
Issues in the judgment
#Chronology anomaly: petition dated 24th November 2025 yet describes a Stay Order of 24th February 2025 and Enforcement Notice of 17th September 2025 predating it
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wanjala Sio & Machira Kibanya (Suing on their own behalf and on behalf of Daisy Road Residents, Runda) v Alexander Mburu Mungai & 2 others", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Petition No. E096 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5581/eng@2026-09-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.