Lempaa v County Government of Kiambu & 2 others; National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) (Interested Party) (Environment and Planning Petition E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6743 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kiambu landowner won against the County Government for grading his road without an environmental assessment, winning restoration, culverts, and damages.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Availability of the constitutional avenue for environmental redress
The constitutional avenue under Articles 42 and 70 is available to the Petitioner
The Petitioner alleged infringement of his right to a clean and healthy environment and irregular procedure under EMCA. The court noted the absence of EIA and lack of public participation, that uncontroverted evidence showed obstruction and damage, and held the constitutional route under Article 70 open to him notwithstanding other remedies.
Breach of Article 42
Breach established - the project proceeded without EIA or public participation, violating the right to a clean and healthy environment
The Respondents did not respond; NEMA confirmed no EIA study was done contrary to Section 58 of EMCA. The Petitioner was never consulted. Applying the precautionary principle, the court drew the presumption that the un-procedural project violates or risks harming the environment and held Article 42 infringed.
Appropriate remedies
Declarations under Articles 42 and 35, restoration order, culverts, token damages of Kshs. 100,000; general/exemplary damages and project suspension refused
The declarations were granted on the reasoning above. Damages for physical and psychological suffering failed for want of proof; the court instead awarded a token Kshs. 100,000 for infringement and directed restoration and culverts within 30 days, declining to suspend the project.
Legal principles established
#- Where a statutory environmental protection procedure is not followed, a presumption arises that the project violates or potentially harms the right to a clean and healthy environment, rebuttable only by following proper procedure
- Where the precautionary principle is invoked, the burden of proof rests on the project proponent to show the project is not environmentally harmful
- Public participation in EIA processes must be real and actual, not a formality, and the views of those most likely to oppose a project are the most important
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the actions of the Respondents violated Article 42 of the Constitution in relation to the Petitioner
- 2.A declaration that the 1st Respondent violated the Petitioner's right to access information under Article 35
- 3.An environmental restoration order directing the Respondents to jointly remedy the environmental damage on the easement adjacent to the Petitioner's two parcels of land in Kiahuria Estate within 30 days
- 4.The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents directed to put culverts at the gates of Juja/Komo Block 2/715 and Juja/Komo Block 2/716 within 30 days
- 5.Token damages of Kshs. 100,000/= awarded jointly against the Respondents
- 6.Costs of the Petition awarded to the Petitioner jointly against the Respondents, capped at Kshs. 50,000
- 7.NEMA to ensure an EIA report is done with meaningful public participation, investigate complaints and may take disciplinary action
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 42, 70 and 258 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lempaa v County Government of Kiambu & 2 others; National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) (Interested Party) (Environment and Planning Petition E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6743 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 8/10/2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6743/eng@2025-10-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.