Kairanga (Suing as the Chairman of Golf View Esate Residents Association) v Karimi & another (Land Case E020 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4652 (KLR)

The suit seeks to enforce the environmental right under Article 42 read with Article 70(1) of the Constitution, which allows any person to apply for redress where the right to a clean and healthy environment is denied, violated, infringed or threatened. Under Article 2(4), any law inconsistent with the Constitution is void, so procedural rules cannot take away what the Constitution gives. Striking out would deny the plaintiff a fair hearing under Article 50(1).

As of 15-7-2026 only one plaint was on record, so the preliminary objection grounds premised on a second plaint failed. In any event, Order 8 rule 1(1) permits amendment of pleadings once at any time before closure, and no defence had been filed, so the pleadings were not closed and the plaintiff could amend without leave.

The court found that the prayer for demolition of the allegedly illegally constructed livestock structures should await final determination of the dispute. However, if it is proved at the interlocutory stage that the structures blocked natural drainage causing water logging and nuisance, and the defendants' explanation is unsatisfactory, the court could issue appropriate orders to open up the drainage even before the suit is concluded.

The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown principles, electing to consider the balance of convenience because the other two principles might be contentious once a defence is filed. Since the defendants filed no replying affidavit, all the plaintiff's evidence was uncontroverted, justifying an order that construction of the livestock structures on the suit premises should not continue.