Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedRuiru ELC Appeal No. E055 of 2024 (Notice of Motion dated 5/6/2024; Preliminary Objection dated 12/6/2024)· [2024] KEELC 6690 (KLR)

Kimando & 6 others (Suing as officials of Croton Ridge Gardens Residents Association) v Mwaura; County Government of Kiambu & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Appeal E052 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 6690 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
9 October 2024
4,314 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~17 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court stopped unapproved construction in a gated Ruiru estate and ruled that jurisdiction challenges requiring fact-finding cannot end cases early.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicants, members of Croton Ridge Gardens Residents Association, appealed against a ruling of the trial court in Ruiru ELC No. E055 of 2024 delivered on 30/5/2024, which upheld a preliminary objection and dismissed their suit for want of jurisdiction. By a Notice of Motion dated 5/6/2024 they sought a temporary injunction restraining the Respondent from continuing construction on Juja-kiaura Block7/2645 without approvals, a stay of execution of costs, and police supervision of the orders. The 1st Interested Party opposed, raising a preliminary objection that the ELC lacked jurisdiction because the dispute over physical planning, land use and the EIA licence belonged before the County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee under the PLUPA and the National Environmental Tribunal under EMCA. Applying the Mukisa Biscuit tests, the court held that determining the objection would require analysis of facts and evidence from the trial court, defeating the objection, and that upholding it would summarily dismiss the appeal contrary to the right to a fair hearing. The objection was dismissed. On the motion, the court found the Respondent's case uncontroverted and held that the Applicants had established a prima facie case, irreparable harm not compensable in damages, and balance of convenience in their favour; the injunction issued. Stay of execution of costs was granted, the application having been filed six days after the ruling. The preliminary objection was dismissed, the motion allowed in terms of prayers c, d and e, with costs in the cause. Judgment delivered virtually at Thika on 9 October 2024 by J G Kemei, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the preliminary objection on exhaustion of statutory remedies (PLUPA Liaison Committee and NET) divested the ELC of jurisdiction

Holding

The preliminary objection failed because its determination required an analysis of facts and evidence from the trial court, and upholding it would summarily dismiss the appeal without a hearing.

Reasoning

The court applied the Mukisa Biscuit tests: a preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law, argued on assumed pleaded facts, and cannot succeed if facts must be ascertained. Determining whether the Liaison Committee or NET had jurisdiction required interrogating the impugned ruling, the rival cases and evidence in the trial court. Upholding the objection would also oust the Applicants from the seat of justice contrary to their fair-hearing rights.

p. 6
02

Whether a temporary injunction should issue restraining construction on the suit land pending appeal

Holding

Injunction granted: the Applicants established a prima facie case, irreparable harm not compensable in damages, and the balance of convenience favoured them.

Reasoning

The Respondent did not oppose or controvert the Applicants' evidence that she was a member of a gated community undertaking construction without requisite approvals contrary to the Association's bylaws. That established a prima facie case; the harm to the planned environment of the estate could not be adequately compensated by costs; and the balance of convenience favoured an injunction to preserve the subject matter of the appeal.

p. 8
03

Whether stay of execution of the costs awarded to the Respondent should be granted pending appeal

Holding

Stay of execution of costs granted, the application having been made without unreasonable delay and substantial loss being unopposed.

Reasoning

Applying Order 42 rule 6 and Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal, the court noted the application was filed six days after the impugned ruling, the substantial-loss claim was unopposed, and costs could be paid upon determination of the appeal if the appellate court so ordered. Although no security had been offered, the court could order it if warranted; the prayer was allowed.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection fails where its determination requires ascertainment of facts or analysis of evidence rather than a pure point of law.
  • Gated community members who contravene agreed planning regulations may cause harm not adequately compensable by damages.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 12/6/2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.The Notice of Motion dated 5/6/2024 is allowed in terms of prayers c, d and e (temporary injunction restraining construction on Juja-kiaura Block7/2645, stay of execution of costs awarded to the Respondent, and supervision by the OCS Kibii Police Station)
  3. 3.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rules 1 & 4; Order 42 Rules 6 and 51; Order 51 Rule 1
  • Physical and Land Use Planning Act (PLUPA), 2019Sections 58, 60, 61(3) & (4), 72, 76, 78; Part VI
  • Environment Management and Co-ordination Act (EMCA)Sections 120, 129(1)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 159(2)(c), 162(2)(b)
  • Environment and Land Court Act (ELCA)Section 13
  • County Government Actcited generally

Cases cited (13)

  • Owners of Motor Vessel 'Lilian S' Vs. Caltex Oil Kenya Ltd
    [1989] eKLR
  • Kibos Distillers Ltd & 4 Others v Benson Ambuti Adega & 3 Others
    [2020] eKLR
  • Re The Matter of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission
    [2011] eKLR
  • Okalo v Sifat
    [2023] KEELC 20291 (KLR)
  • Patricia Njeri & 3 Others Vs. National Museum of Kenya
    [2004] eKLR
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd
    [1969] E.A 696
  • Hassan Ali Joho & Another v Suleiman Said Shabal & 2 Others
    SCK Petition No. 10 of 2013 [2014] eKLR
  • David Karobia Kiiru v Charles Nderitu Gitoi & Another
    [2008] eKLR
  • Giella v Cassman Brown
    [1973] E.A 358
  • Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others
    CA No.77 of 2012 [2014] eKLR
  • Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd
    [2003] eKLR
  • Moses C. Muhia Njoroge & 2 Others Vs. Jane W. Lesaloi and 5 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal
    [1982] KLR 417
On appeal from
Chief Magistrates' Court at Ruiru (ELC)
Ruiru ELC No. E055 of 2024
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution read with Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act (appellate jurisdiction over the trial court ruling)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kimando & 6 others (Suing as officials of Croton Ridge Gardens Residents Association) v Mwaura; County Government of Kiambu & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Appeal E052 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 6690 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Ruiru ELC Appeal No. E055 of 2024 (Notice of Motion dated 5/6/2024; Preliminary Objection dated 12/6/2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6690/eng@2024-10-09

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.