Northern Block Residents Limited v Gitom & another; Canaan Residences Llp (Respondent); National Environment ManagementAuthority & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Petition E090 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 438 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to jail developers for alleged contempt but kept a construction ban in place, allowing only supervised safety work on the disputed property.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the contemnors were in contempt of the 20th December 2024 conservatory orders
No - contempt not proved to the required standard
The court found the order clear and binding and the Respondent aware of it, but the Petitioner's evidence fell short: photographs of construction materials were inconclusive, lacked locational evidence linking them to the suit property, no OB extracts or charge sheets proved arrests of the contemnors' employees or agents, and independent inspections by both Interested Parties confirmed no ongoing construction. Suspicion or inference cannot sustain a contempt finding given the quasi-criminal standard.
Whether the conservatory orders should be discharged
No - discharge refused; orders varied only to permit safety works
The Respondent failed to show a material change in circumstances since the regulatory approvals predated the orders. The Court of Appeal structural interdicts in Civil Appeals E160 of 2024 and E1010 of 2024 did not invalidate the 2021 policy, declare the cause moot, or direct courts to vacate interim reliefs. The 2025 ordinance, not yet enacted, could not displace the 2021 policy. The court distinguished remedial stabilisation works from development and varied the orders accordingly.
Whether security for damages/undertaking as to damages should be ordered
No - refused as inconsistent with constitutional proceedings
Security for damages is ordinarily a private law remedy. Because the Petition challenges the legality of building approvals and is brought under Articles 22 and 23, imposing security would improperly burden access to constitutional justice, contrary to Mumo Matemu. The Respondent also failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances at the interlocutory stage.
Legal principles established
#- Elements of civil contempt: clear unambiguous terms of order; knowledge; breach; deliberate conduct
- Standard of proof in contempt is higher than balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt
- Not every physical activity on land constitutes development; purely safety or stabilisation works do not breach a conservatory order against construction
- Conservatory orders may be reviewed, varied or set aside on proof of changed circumstances or non-disclosure of material facts
- A proposed ordinance that has undergone public participation and first reading does not confer the force of law
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 4th April 2025 (contempt application) is dismissed
- 2.The prayer for discharge of the Conservatory Orders in the application dated 29th July 2025 is dismissed
- 3.The Conservatory Orders dated 20th December 2024 are varied: they shall continue to prohibit any construction on the suit property
- 4.The Respondent is authorised to carry out only such limited measures as are strictly necessary and contemplated in the Site Inspection Reports to secure and stabilise the site
- 5.The measures shall be expressly approved and supervised by the Interested Parties and other regulatory agencies
- 6.The Respondent shall submit a detailed work plan to the Petitioner and the Court within 14 days
- 7.The Respondent shall file a report detailing the remedial measures undertaken
- 8.No construction, excavation or development beyond the remedial measures shall be undertaken; all activities must comply with directives of the Interested Parties and competent agencies
- 9.Parties are at liberty to apply for further directions and in the event of non-compliance
- 10.The Respondent's alternative prayer for an undertaking as to damages (Kshs 100 million security) and costs is dismissed
- 11.Costs shall abide with the outcome of the Petition
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23 and 162(2)(b) of the Constitution; Environment and Land Court Act Sections 3 and 19(2)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Northern Block Residents Limited v Gitom & another; Canaan Residences Llp (Respondent); National Environment ManagementAuthority & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Petition E090 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 438 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Petition with applications dated 4th April 2025 and 29th July 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/438/eng@2026-01-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.