Visram & 3 others v Nairobi City County Government & 3 others; Runda Association (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Petition E31 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7427 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Nairobi's Environment and Land Court ordered the County to stop flooding a Runda property with storm water, inspect its drainage within 45 days, and pay the costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Petitioners established a prima facie case with a probability of success
A prima facie case was established on the strength of the Respondents' admissions that the drainage system was collapsed, misaligned and defective, and their acknowledgment of the statutory duty to manage storm water, demonstrating an apparent violation of Articles 40 and 42 rights
The court found it undisputed that under Section 11 of Part 2 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution the Respondents bear the duty to provide storm-water management in built-up areas. The County's own technical officer conceded the drainage was collapsed with misaligned invert levels. The claim that flooding was a topographical inevitability was negated by that admission. Together these showed an apparent infringement of the rights to property and to a clean and healthy environment calling for rebuttal.
Whether the Petitioners would suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages
The harm was irreparable: recurring flooding, structural damage, environmental degradation and psychological distress amounted to continuing constitutional violations incapable of adequate monetary compensation
The Petitioners showed photographs and receipts evidencing collapsed perimeter walls, structural damage and substantial remedial expenditure, plus uncontroverted evidence of psychological distress and loss of dignity. The court held that flooding of a residential home and continuous discharge of waste-laden storm water infringed Articles 40 and 42, and these continuing violations cannot be adequately compensated by damages after the fact.
Where the balance of convenience lies
The balance of convenience favours the Petitioners, as the comparative mischief of withholding the injunction (continued flooding and degradation of the home) far exceeds the burden on the Respondents of acting within their legal mandate
Applying the Pius Kipchirchir Kogo test, the court found the Petitioners endure recurrent flooding, pollutant exposure and emotional distress with every rainfall, while the Respondents failed to show that immediate remedial steps would paralyse public operations or cause disproportionate hardship. The measures fell squarely within the County's constitutional mandate under Section 11 of Part 2 of the Fourth Schedule.
Whether the circumstances justify a mandatory injunction at the interlocutory stage
Yes - the case presented clear and special circumstances: a continuing and undisputed discharge of storm water from a defective public drainage system acknowledged by the Respondents, constituting an ongoing constitutional violation
The court applied the Kenya Breweries and Nation Media Group authorities permitting interlocutory mandatory injunctions where refusal would perpetuate an illegality or constitutional violation. The violation was ongoing, not speculative, and stemmed from an act of public authority contrary to its constitutional duties under Articles 42 and 69. The State's positive obligations under Articles 21 and 43 required the court to act to forestall the violation.
The true character of the first prayer couched as a prohibitory injunction
The prayer was mandatory in substance because giving effect to it would require affirmative steps such as sealing the outlet and realigning water flow
The court examined the wording of the prayer and held that although styled prohibitory, enforcing it would compel the Respondents to take positive action. Consequently the higher threshold for mandatory injunctions applied, prompting the court's review of the special-circumstances authorities.
Legal principles established
#- A prayer framed as a prohibitory injunction that in substance compels affirmative action is treated as a mandatory injunction attracting a higher threshold
- Mandatory injunctions may be granted at the interlocutory stage only in clear and special circumstances, including where refusal would perpetuate an ongoing illegality or constitutional violation
- Administrative constraints such as planning and budgetary limitations cannot justify the continued infringement of fundamental rights
- Where an ongoing administrative omission causes immediate and continuing injury, the court must act to forestall the violation rather than defer to bureaucratic delay
Court orders
#- 1.An interim injunction prohibiting the Respondents, their agents, servants or any person acting under their authority from unlawfully discharging storm water into the Petitioners' property, Plot 216 and other adjacent plots, pending the hearing and determination of the petition
- 2.An interim mandatory injunction directing the Respondents to take immediate proportionate mitigation measures to prevent flooding on Plot 216 Ruaka Road, including temporarily redirecting storm water and installing drainage control measures, pending the hearing and determination of the Petition
- 3.An interim order directing the Respondents to conduct a technical inspection and assessment of the storm drainage system along the southern side of Ruaka Road between Ruaka Drive intersection and Mae Properties Drive intersection, and submit a verified report within 45 days detailing the current storm water discharge route, the impact of the unlawful discharge, and proposed remedial short-term measures
- 4.An interim mandatory injunction compelling the Respondents, after the technical inspection, to implement immediate containment measures, including if feasible the temporary sealing or controlled diversion of the open drainage outlet, to prevent direct discharge into private plots pending final remedial works
- 5.An interim order directing the Respondents to take reasonable emergency measures to assist the Applicants in the event of flooding during the pendency of the suit, including clean-up and sanitation support and provision of temporary shelter if displacement occurs
- 6.The costs of implementing the interim measures to be borne by the Respondents subject to the final determination of liability
- 7.The Respondents to cater for the costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23, 258 and 259 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (constitutional petition invoking enforcement of Bill of Rights); application brought under Order 40 Rule 1 and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Visram & 3 others v Nairobi City County Government & 3 others; Runda Association (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Petition E31 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7427 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7427/eng@2025-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.