Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment (petition concerning L.R No. MN/III/2971, Garden Park Hotel, Mtwapa)· [2025] KEELC 7143 (KLR)

Garden Park Hotel Limited & another v Jiangxi Transportation Engineering Group Limited & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7143 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 October 2025
2,245 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Mombasa court confirmed you can sue road contractors over environmental harm directly in the Environment and Land Court, but interim orders require proof of irreparable harm.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioners, operators of Garden Park Hotel on L.R No. MN/III/2971 at Mtwapa Creek, moved the court by notice of motion dated 03.03.2025 seeking mandatory orders compelling the respondents, engaged in expanding the Mombasa-Malindi Highway at Mtwapa Bridge, to shore up excavations along their boundary and remove a steel structure blocking access to plots MN/III/2439 and 2440. They contended the construction blocked access, rendered the hotel unusable and caused economic loss without notice or alternative access. The 1st and 2nd respondents, contractors of the 3rd respondent, replied that the project was environmentally assessed and licensed by NEMA, that challenges to the licence lay before the National Environmental Tribunal under Section 129 of EMCA, and filed a preliminary objection on jurisdiction and on the ground that they were agents of a disclosed principal. The court framed three issues. Applying Mukisa Biscuits, it held the preliminary objection unmerited because the National Environmental Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to licensing appeals and does not extend to enforcement of constitutional environmental rights, which Section 13(3) of the ELC Act vests in the ELC. On the injunction, applying Giella v Cassman Brown and Nguruman, the court found a prima facie interference with access demonstrated by an assessment report, but held the petitioners' losses quantifiable through their financial statements and therefore not irreparable. Both the preliminary objection and the application were dismissed, each with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether EMCA Section 129 ousts the ELC's jurisdiction over the petition

Holding

The preliminary objection fails; the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to appeals over licensing matters and does not extend to enforcement of constitutional environmental rights.

Reasoning

Section 129 of EMCA confers on the National Environmental Tribunal jurisdiction over appeals concerning licences, conditions, restoration orders and fees. The petition seeks declarations of violation of Articles 24, 28, 40, 42, 47 and 69 and enforcement of environmental rights, which Section 13(3) of the ELC Act vests exclusively in this court. The Tribunal cannot award constitutional compensation or damages.

p. 4
02

Whether the petitioners met the Giella v Cassman Brown test for an interlocutory injunction

Holding

Although a prima facie case was demonstrated, the petitioners failed to show irreparable injury since their loss was quantifiable in damages.

Reasoning

An assessment report showed deep excavations and blocked access, establishing interference with the petitioners' rights of access and enjoyment. However, the petitioners produced annual reports and financial statements from which loss of business and depreciation of assets could be quantified and compensated at trial. Under Nguruman, speculative or compensable injury cannot found an injunction.

p. 5
03

Costs of the application and preliminary objection

Holding

Each side lost one limb; no order as to costs on either.

Reasoning

Although costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court considered it appropriate that both the application and the preliminary objection be dismissed with no order as to costs, since neither succeeded.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The ELC has jurisdiction to enforce constitutional environmental rights notwithstanding the National Environmental Tribunal's jurisdiction under EMCA.
  • A prima facie case alone does not justify an interlocutory injunction; irreparable injury must also be demonstrated.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 1st and 2nd respondents' notice of preliminary objection dated 24.04.2025 is disallowed with no order as to costs.
  2. 2.The notice of motion dated 03.03.2025 is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rules 1 and 2; Order 51 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A; Section 27 (Cap 21)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 24, 28, 40, 42, 47, 69, 70
  • Environment Management and Coordination ActSections 125, 129(1)(2)(3)(4)
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 13(3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Limited
    (1969) EA 696
  • Giella vs Cassman Brown & Co Ltd
    (1973) EA 358
  • Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 others
    [2014] KECA 606 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 13(3) of the Environment and Land Court Act; Articles 42, 69 and 70 of the Constitution of Kenya

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Garden Park Hotel Limited & another v Jiangxi Transportation Engineering Group Limited & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7143 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (petition concerning L.R No. MN/III/2971, Garden Park Hotel, Mtwapa). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7143/eng@2025-10-16

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