Kithiu v Khaleej Towers Lomited & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E069 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 532 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court ruled that an unregistered sewer line is still public infrastructure, and a landowner who blocked it must remove all obstructions and pay costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Public wayleave versus private easement
The sewer line is public sewerage infrastructure established under statutory authority, not a private easement, notwithstanding absence of formal registration on the survey plan.
The Court distinguished a private easement, a proprietary right benefiting specific landowners, from a public utility corridor established for installation, maintenance and access to public infrastructure. Evidence showed the line was laid in the early 1980s under the Wayleave Act, serves multiple properties along Muratina Street, extends to the Ruai Treatment Plant and is continuously maintained by the 3rd Respondent under statutory mandate. Historical public infrastructure often lacks formal notation on titles.
Unlawful interference with the sewer corridor
On a balance of probabilities, the Petitioner obstructed, interfered with and endangered the sewer line and its corridor.
Afidavit evidence, correspondence, site findings and regulatory correspondence showed erection of temporary structures, an inspection chamber over the line, dumping of waste and obstruction of lawful access, prompting repeated regulatory interventions. The Petitioner offered only denials and no technical or regulatory rebuttal; the burden shifted to him once credible evidence of interference was adduced.
Entitlement to declaratory and injunctive reliefs
The Cross-Petitioner was entitled to declarations, an order to clear obstructions and a permanent injunction under Article 70 and the Court's equitable jurisdiction.
Article 70 empowers the Court to issue orders to prevent, stop or redress environmental harm. A declaration clarifying the public status of the resource forestalls further private appropriation; injunctive relief was justified by demonstrated persistent interference and a real likelihood of recurrence absent court orders. The reliefs were proportionate, lawful and justified by the evidence.
Costs
The Petitioner to bear the costs of the Cross-Petition as the Cross-Petitioner substantially succeeded.
Costs follow the event unless good reason exists for departure. The Cross-Petitioner substantially succeeded in establishing both the public character of the sewer line and the Petitioner's unlawful interference; no exceptional circumstances warranted departing from the general rule.
Legal principles established
#- The absence of formal registration of a wayleave on survey records does not negate the public character of infrastructure lawfully established and continuously operated as a public utility.
- Where infrastructure is constructed by government authority, serves multiple properties, is regulated by a statutory body and exists for communal benefit, it transcends a private easement and assumes the character of public infrastructure.
- Once credible evidence of interference with public infrastructure is adduced, the burden shifts to the party alleged to have engaged in such conduct to rebut it; mere denials do not suffice.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the sewer line traversing Land Reference Nos. 36/VII/234 and 36/VII/235 constitutes public sewerage infrastructure established under statutory authority and held for communal benefit.
- 2.A declaration that the Petitioner unlawfully interfered with the sewer line and its associated corridor through obstruction and unauthorized activities.
- 3.An order directing the Petitioner to remove and clear forthwith any structures, materials or obstructions erected or placed along the sewer corridor interfering with access, maintenance and operation of the sewer line.
- 4.A permanent injunction restraining the Petitioner, his agents or servants from erecting any structures, dumping waste, obstructing access or in any manner interfering with the sewer line and its associated corridor.
- 5.The Petitioner shall bear the costs of the Cross-Petition.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 42, 69 and 70 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (environmental rights jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kithiu v Khaleej Towers Lomited & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E069 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 532 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Petition dated 28th August 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/532/eng@2026-02-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.