Miri & another (Suing as Representatives of Redsoil Ridge Residents Association) v Munene & 2 others (Environment and Planning Petition E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4675 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck out residents' challenge to a neighbour's construction because they skipped the tribunals set up to hear such disputes first.
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 Preliminary Objection meets the legal threshold of a preliminary objection
- 2.Whether the Preliminary Objection should be upheld, i.e. whether this Court has jurisdiction in light of the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies
Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection qualifies as a pure point of law under Mukisa Biscuits
An objection to jurisdiction is a pure point of law and properly raised as a preliminary objection
The court adopted the classic Mukisa Biscuits definition, noting that a preliminary objection must raise a point of law argued on the assumption that the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. An objection based on lack of jurisdiction, as here, fits that threshold and could dispose of the suit without ascertaining facts or exercising judicial discretion.
Whether the court has jurisdiction given the statutory dispute-resolution mechanisms in the Physical and Land Use Planning Act and EMCA
The court has no jurisdiction because the petitioners failed to exhaust the remedies provided under Sections 61(3) and 72(3) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act and the relevant EMCA mechanisms before filing suit
Sections 61(3) and 72(3) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act route disputes over development permissions and enforcement notices to the County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee, with appeals to the ELC on matters of law only. EMCA similarly channels EIA licence disputes to the National Environment Tribunal. Relying on Albert Chaurembo Mumbo and the exhaustion doctrine, the court held the petitioners prematurely invoked its jurisdiction and upheld the preliminary objection.
Legal principles established
#- Where a statute provides a clear procedure for redress, that procedure must be strictly followed and the court's jurisdiction cannot be prematurely invoked
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection is upheld
- 2.The application and the suit are struck out in their entirety
- 3.The petitioners shall bear the costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23, 40, 42, 70, 162(2)(b) and 258 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the 1st Respondent from continuing construction on RUIRU/TOWNSHIP/2XX9 and the related interim orders sought in the Notice of Motion
The court upheld the preliminary objection on lack of jurisdiction due to non-exhaustion of statutory remedies and struck out the application and suit
Costs
The petitioners shall bear the costs 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.
Accordingly, I uphold the Preliminary Objection and strike out the application and the suit in its entirety.
The petitioners shall bear the costs of the application.
In the present case, it is clear that the Physical and Land Use Planning Act and EMCA provide for alternative means of resolving the dispute which the applicants have brought before this court prematurely.
even where superior courts had jurisdiction to determine profound questions of law, the first opportunity had to be given to relevant tribunals or any other quasi- judicial authorities and organs to deal with the dispute as provided for in the relevant statute
Where there is a clear procedure for redress of any particular grievance prescribed by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure should be strictly followed.
Issues in the judgment
#Paragraph numbering repeats - two paragraphs are numbered 31, the second containing the disposition and costs order
The land parcel is inconsistently referred to as RUIRU/TOWNSHIP/2089 in the title and RUIRU/TOWNSHIP/2XX9 in the body of the ruling
The petitioners filed no submissions; the ruling refers to 'the Plaintifi' though the matter is a petition
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Miri & another (Suing as Representatives of Redsoil Ridge Residents Association) v Munene & 2 others (Environment and Planning Petition E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4675 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 26th March 2025 (Ruiru/Township/2089 matter). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4675/eng@2025-06-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.