AOO & 6 others v Trustee, Nakuru Golf Club & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E013 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4658 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed residents' bid to silence Nakuru Golf Club's music because their phone-app noise readings weren't legally valid evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Petition offends the doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies (and constitutional avoidance)
- 2.Whether the Applicants have met the threshold for the grant of conservatory orders
Key legal issues
#Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction over the Petition notwithstanding the exhaustion doctrine
The court found it has requisite jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13(3) of the Environment and Land Court Act, which preclude nothing from redress of threats to the right to a clean and healthy environment
The court cited Section 13(3) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011 which provides that nothing in the Act precludes the Court from hearing applications for redress of a denial, violation or infringement of, or threat to, rights relating to a clean and healthy environment under Articles 42, 69 and 70. The court also noted that the alternative forum may lack jurisdiction to grant constitutional conservatory orders, and held that the court has the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the Petition, while cautioning against couching pleadings to avoid alternative forums.
Whether the Applicants met the threshold for conservatory orders
The Applicants failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success because the noise measurements were taken using the 1st Petitioner's personal phone application and not by the relevant lead agency (NEMA) as required under Regulation 6 of the Noise Regulations, 2009
The court found that the Applicants did not approach the 3rd Respondent (NEMA) to offer expertise in measuring noise pollution, that no noise assessment report by NEMA was on record despite its mandate under the Noise Regulations, 2009, and that the phone-app readings could not establish that permissible limits were exceeded. The prima facie case requirement was therefore not satisfied and the application was dismissed with costs in the cause.
Legal principles established
#- The availability of an alternative remedy does not necessarily bar constitutional relief; the court scrutinizes the adequacy of the alternative remedy and the purpose for which constitutional relief is sought
- An applicant for conservatory orders must demonstrate a prima facie case with a likelihood of success, likelihood of prejudice absent the order, and that the order is in the public interest
- Under Regulation 6 of the Noise Regulations, 2009, noise measurements shall be taken by the relevant lead agency or a person duly authorized by the Authority knowledgeable in the proper use of the measuring equipment
- Where a dispute resolution mechanism exists outside courts, it must be exhausted before the jurisdiction of the courts is invoked
Court orders
#- 1.The Applicants' application dated 5th December, 2025 seeking conservatory orders is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution; Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011; Articles 42, 69 and 70 of the Constitution; Section 3(3) of EMCA
Relief refused
#Conservatory order restraining the 1st and 2nd Respondents from playing and streaming loud music through amplified artificial sound systems within their premises pending hearing and determination of the petition
The Applicants did not demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success because the noise readings were taken with a personal phone application rather than by the 3rd Respondent or an authorized person under Regulation 6 of the Noise Regulations, and no noise assessment report by NEMA was on record
Costs of the application payable by the Respondents
The application was dismissed with costs in the cause
Costs
Application dismissed with costs in the cause
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
I therefore find that the Applicant has not met the threshold for the grant of conservatory orders. Consequently, the Applicant's application is hereby dismissed with costs in the cause.
Measurements shall be taken by the relevant lead agency.
The alternative forum or Tribunal may not have the requisite jurisdiction to grant some of the orders sought which are of a constitutional nature especially violation of rights under the Bill of Rights.
It is imperative that where a dispute resolution mechanism exists outside courts, the same be exhausted before the jurisdiction of the courts is invoked.
I have considered the submission by counsel and find that this court has the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine this Petition.
Issues in the judgment
#Petitioners' counsel cited inconsistent decibel readings in submissions (71/69/83 dB in the affidavit but 73/69/83 dB in submissions)
The 3rd Respondent's submissions refer to a complaint lodged with it and an inspection report, while the 1st Petitioner's evidence and the court's finding proceed on the basis that no professional measurements were undertaken and the petitioners did not allow the NEMA process to take its course
Names and case numbers of the parties and the suit are withheld or not stated in the judgment, making full identification of parties dependent on context
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "AOO & 6 others v Trustee, Nakuru Golf Club & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E013 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4658 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4658/eng@2026-07-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.