Mwaura (Petitioning as the Executive Chairman and Chairman of the Development and Infrastructure Committee of Golf View Estate Residents Association) v County Government of Murang’a & 2 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6556 (KLR)

The 1st Respondent adduced no evidence of an approved county physical and land use development plan, no documented and meaningful public participation, no proof that environmental concerns were addressed, no proof that reasons for approval were served on the Petitioners, and no proof that the Petitioners were informed of their right of appeal to the County Physical and Land Use Liaison Committee, whose proper constitution and functionality is also unproven.

Article 23(1)(3)(f) of the Constitution and section 11(1) of the Fair Administrative Action Act recognise judicial review as a constitutional remedy, lifting it from a common-law remedy subject to Order 53 time limits to a constitutional right free of statutory limitation.

The prima facie case rests on the lease condition restricting use to one dwelling house, four plots set aside within the community for such projects, and uncontroverted pictorial evidence that the project was incomplete. Damages would not adequately compensate and the balance of convenience favours stopping construction of a building that may later be demolished; the Giella v Cassman Brown principles are satisfied.

Every person has a constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment, and the State may regulate land use in the interest of planning under Articles 42 and 66(1). The suit is justiciable, discloses a reasonable cause of action, and the Petitioners' correspondence evidences good faith.

The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed no documents despite the motion seeking sixteen specific documents essential to a just determination. Those documents underpinned the development approvals and the EIA licence and must be produced before the court can fairly determine the public participation issue.