Thika Grove Chania Limited & 2 others v County Government of Murang’a & 2 others (Environment and Planning Petition E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1023 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court in Murang'a refused to suspend Murang'a's 2023 land law, saying developers must sue the Attorney General first and use appeals, not petitions, to force development permissions.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether to suspend application of statutory provisions pending hearing of the main petition
Refused; the affidavit did not demonstrate the laws were unconstitutional, and petitioners did not explain why the 2023 Act should not apply to them in 2025
The court found the supporting affidavit insufficient to justify suspension of the impugned provisions at an interlocutory stage. The petitioners' own letter of 17-9-2025 proposing surrender of 4.09% despite the Act having been enacted in 2023 undercut their case, and they failed to adequately explain why the retrospective application was unconstitutional.
Whether constitutional invalidation can proceed without the Attorney General and the Ministry responsible for Physical Planning as parties
They are necessary parties where a statutory provision may be suspended
The court held that if parts of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act are to be suspended in the suit, the Attorney General and the Ministry responsible for Physical Planning must be joined, as the effectiveness of any such order requires their presence before the court.
Whether the Court can compel processing of development permission applications
No; the Court lacks jurisdiction to compel the Respondents to issue development permissions
Sections 55-61 of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act govern development control, and the only reference to the Environment and Land Court is Section 61(4), which provides for appeals by aggrieved applicants. The court is therefore confined to an appellate role, not supervisory compulsion of administrative decisions on development permissions.
Whether the threshold for conservatory orders was met
Not met; motion dismissed
Applying the Munya test, the petitioners failed to demonstrate an arguable constitutional issue, a genuine threat to rights, prejudice, and public interest favouring interim relief. The motion was unopposed, but the court still required the threshold to be independently satisfied.
Legal principles established
#- The threshold for conservatory orders requires demonstration of an arguable constitutional issue, genuine threat to constitutional rights, likelihood of prejudice, public interest, and preservation of the substratum of the petition
- The Environment and Land Court's role in development control under the Physical and Land Use Planning Act is limited to hearing appeals under Section 61(4)
Court orders
#- 1.The motion dated 3-12-2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23, 40, 47, 165(3)(b) and (d) and 256 of the Constitution of Kenya
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Thika Grove Chania Limited & 2 others v County Government of Murang’a & 2 others (Environment and Planning Petition E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1023 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (Notice of motion dated 3-12-2025 within a constitutional petition). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1023/eng@2026-02-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.