Green Lake Investment v Onyango & 2 others t/a Alleyways Beer Garden & 4 others
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether or not the Petitioner has capacity to maintain the Petition and whether the court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition
- 2.Whether the Petitioner has proved the alleged noise pollution
- 3.Whether or not the 1st Respondent violated the Petitioner's Constitutional Rights under Articles 35, 40, 42 and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
- 4.Whether the 1st Respondent has breached any Statutory or regulatory obligation under the Environmental Management and Coordination Act and related regulations
- 5.Whether the Petition discloses the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents
- 6.Whether the electronic evidence is admissible
- 7.Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought
- 8.Costs of the Petition
Key legal issues
#Capacity and jurisdiction
The court had already ruled on 3/11/2022 that it had jurisdiction and that the Petitioner could sue in its business name; that ruling was not appealed, reviewed or varied
The court noted the earlier ruling addressed jurisdiction and capacity, found no appeal, review or variation of it, and declined to revisit the issues, effectively treating them as settled between the parties.
Proof of noise pollution without calibrated measurements
Noise pollution was proved through the Regulation 3(2) factors: complaint letters, the 5.9.2023 meeting agreement to soundproof within 30 days, and constant amplified noise
Neither party produced calibrated measurements. The court held that Regulation 3(2) permits other factors: time of day, recurrence, intensity, electronic enhancement and controllability. Complaint letters, the City Manager meeting and the unchallenged handwritten agreement to install soundproofing within 30 days demonstrated the pollution, following Elizabeth Kurer Heier.
Admissibility of covert electronic recording
The recording of the 5.9.2023 City Manager meeting was inadmissible
The recording was made during the pendency of the suit without the knowledge or consent of attendees, including the 1st Respondent who was already a party. The Petitioner was not even invited to the meeting. The section 30 Data Protection Act exemption and Regulation 5 did not cover this scenario, so the recording could not prove the noise pollution.
Violation of Articles 42 and 35
The 1st and 5th Respondents infringed the Petitioner's right to a clean and healthy environment and its right to information
The noise pollution infringed Article 42. The 14.12.2020 letter to the County Government bore a receiving stamp; the 5th Respondent never denied receipt nor indicated any investigative steps, and the requested information was never supplied, violating Article 35.
Liability of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents
No case proved against them
The 3rd Respondent averred she was a stranger to the allegations and the 1st Respondent was merely a tenant; the court found the claim against the 2nd, 3rd, 4th (and a non-existent 6th) Respondent unproved.
Legal principles established
#- Calibrated noise measurements are not the only mode of proving noise pollution; the factors in Regulation 3(2) of the Noise Regulations may suffice
- A covert recording made during the pendency of a suit, without consent of a party already before the court, is inadmissible and not covered by the section 30 Data Protection Act exemption
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the 1st and 5th Respondents have infringed on the Petitioner's right to a clean and healthy environment as guaranteed in Article 42 of the Constitution and the right to information under Article 35 of the Constitution
- 2.An order of permanent injunction restraining the 1st Respondent, its agents, employees, or any other person claiming through it, from emitting noise from its business known as Alleyways Beer Garden or any such other business that would operate as such and host social events on Plot No. Kisumu Municipality Block 7/356 or any other land within Kisumu County until it takes mitigation measures in compliance with EMCA
- 3.An order directing the 1st Respondent to remove the graffiti painted on the Petitioner's wall within 45 days, failing which the Petitioner removes it and recovers the costs from him
- 4.General damages of Kshs 1,000,000
- 5.Costs of the petition
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22(1), 23 and 70 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 (enforcement of Bill of Rights), read with EMCA and related regulations
Relief refused
#Environmental restoration order requiring the 1st to 4th Respondents to restore the environment to its state before March 2020
Not granted; judgment entered only against the 1st and 5th Respondents and no restoration order made
Aggravated damages
Not addressed or awarded in the final orders
Claims against the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th Respondents
Not proved against those Respondents
Costs
Costs of the petition awarded 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 Court finds that on the basis of the evidence placed before the Court, the Petitioner proved that there was noise pollution and that its constitutional rights guaranteed in Article 42 have been infringed.
I find that the electronic evidence is not admissible as evidence and, as such, it cannot be acceptable as one of the ways by which the Petitioner demonstrated the noise pollution without having the levels of the noise measured.
under Regulation 3(2), the level and intensity of the noise is only one of the factors that may be considered in determining the question of noise pollution.
A declaration that the 1st and 5th Respondents have infringed on the Petitioner's right to a clean and healthy environment as guaranteed in Article 42 of the Constitution and the right to information under Article 35 of the Constitution.
General damages of Kshs 1,000,000/
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment refers to a 6th Respondent though only five Respondents are named in the cause title
Same authority spelled inconsistently as 'Elizabeth Kurer Heirer' and 'Elizabeth Kurer Heier'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Green Lake Investment v Onyango & 2 others t/a Alleyways Beer Garden & 4 others", Case Analysis (2026). Petition E001 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5862/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.