Safaricom Staff Pension Scheme Registered Trustees v Erdemann Property Limited & 5 others [2017] KEELC 2891 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court quashed approvals for a sewer line built without consulting affected landowners, reaffirming that property rights include access.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Locus standi of the Petitioner and Interested Parties
The Petitioner had locus standi as registered owner of L.R. No. 337/974 and developer of the Crystal Rivers project; standing in public interest matters requires only sufficient interest, and under Article 70(3) no loss or injury need be demonstrated.
The court found the Petitioner incorporated under the Trustees (Perpetual Succession) Act was the same entity registered as proprietor of L.R. No. 337/974 since 2013 and was developing it. It was directly aggrieved by the 13-kilometre sewer line along the two roads abutting its land. Public interest litigation requires only demonstration of sufficient interest, and Article 70(3) removes any requirement to prove loss or injury for environmental claims.
Whether the approvals for the sewer line were granted without public participation and in breach of fair administrative action
Yes. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents approved the sewer line without any public participation and without hearing the Petitioner and Interested Parties, breaching Articles 10, 40 and 47 and Section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, rendering the approvals illegal and unconstitutional.
The E.I.A Report interviewed only five unrelated individuals, none of them the adjoining landowners directly affected; the adjoining owners had a legitimate expectation that the roads serving their properties would remain accessible or that they would be consulted of any changes. The 2nd Respondent approved the works two days after application, with no evidence of critical evaluation of the access and flooding impacts. The Respondents' own affidavits showed consultation only occurred after construction began, confirming there was no participation before the approvals.
Whether the right of access to property was infringed
The sewer line as approved, raised above ground and cutting across the main access, would block or impede the Petitioner's and Interested Parties' access to their properties, infringing Article 40 rights.
Property rights under Article 40(1) encompass access, not merely use and occupation. The E.I.A Report did not address accessibility of adjoining parcels or the impact of raising the sewer line on underground sewer lines of neighbours. The design would cause flooding and limit access; property without access is of little value, and the Respondents knew their actions would affect access rights.
Legal principles established
#- The right to own property under Article 40(1) extends beyond use and occupation to include access to the property.
- Where an administrative action is likely to adversely affect a person's rights, the administrator must give prior adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard before the decision is made.
- A public interest litigant need only demonstrate sufficient interest; and in environmental claims under Article 70 no loss or injury need be shown to establish standing.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the approvals granted to the 1st Respondent by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents with respect to the construction of a sewer line along Quarry Road and Old Mombasa Road for the Great Wall Gardens Project was illegal, unconstitutional and an infringement of the Petitioner's rights under Articles 40 and 47(1) of the Constitution.
- 2.An order of judicial review of certiorari quashing the decisions issued by the 2nd to 4th Respondents granting approval to the 1st Respondent to proceed with the construction of the sewer line along Quarry Road and Old Mombasa Road.
- 3.A permanent injunction restraining the 1st Respondent from proceeding with the construction of the sewer line along Quarry Road and Old Mombasa Road on the basis of the quashed approvals.
- 4.An order of mandamus directed at the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents to reconsider the submitted sewer line designs in line with applicable law and after full public participation by the Petitioner and all other affected stakeholders.
- 5.The 1st Respondent to pay the Petitioner's costs of the Petition.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22(1), 70 and 258(1) and (2) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (constitutional petition enforcing fundamental rights, including right to clean and healthy environment, before the Environment and Land Court)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Erdemann Property Limited v Safaricom Staff Pension Scheme Registered Trustees (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 9 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 1596 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 1596 (KLR)23 Mar 2026followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Safaricom Staff Pension Scheme Registered Trustees v Erdemann Property Limited & 5 others [2017] KEELC 2891 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Petition dated 17th February, 2017 (Machakos). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/2891/eng@2017-05-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.