Gichohi & another v Bajuun Properties Ltd & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E049 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5146 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court stopped a developer from building on two parcels lacking approvals, but let approved construction continue next door.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the planning and EIA approvals authorized the development on all four parcels
Approvals were limited to L.R Nos. 104/228 and 104/229 and did not extend to 104/230 and 104/231; no amalgamation was proved
The Notification of Approval expressly referred to specific parcels, and no corresponding approval for 104/230 or 104/231 was produced. DW1 admitted no amalgamation number had issued and no documentary evidence of completed amalgamation was tendered. DW2 confirmed the EIA covered only 104/228 and 104/229. Approvals must be read according to their terms and cannot be expanded by a developer's assertion.
Whether public participation was meaningful
Public participation complied in respect of 104/228 and 104/229 but did not lawfully cover 104/230 and 104/231
The Court accepted that public participation requires an opportunity for affected persons to express views, not personal involvement of every resident. The EIA process and questionnaires related only to 104/228 and 104/229. Allegations of fictitious signatures failed for want of expert proof of forgery. Participation for the parcels assessed was therefore adequate, but development on parcels not subjected to the process could not be validated by it.
Whether the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights under Articles 40, 42 and 47 were violated
No violation established; no environmental harm proved and the unresolved appeal did not breach Article 47
The evidence addressed legality of approvals and structural implications, not pollution or degradation of natural resources within Article 42 or Article 69. The Plaintiffs also failed to show the county government failed to facilitate the Liaison Committee's mandate; delay alone did not establish an Article 47 breach.
Whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to a permanent injunction
Granted, but limited to L.R Nos. 104/230 and 104/231 pending approvals
The Plaintiffs proved ownership of 104/232 and that the approvals relied upon did not extend to the adjacent parcels. A blanket injunction over all four parcels would exceed the evidence and interfere with the 1st Defendant's proprietary rights on parcels with valid approvals, so the injunction was tailored to the unapproved parcels.
Whether the 1st Defendant's counterclaim was merited
Counterclaim dismissed in its entirety
The injunction and declarations sought were framed broadly and would validate development on parcels lacking approvals. No malice, bad faith or abuse of process by the Plaintiffs was established, defeating general damages. The special damages claim of Kshs 500,000 per day failed because no contracts, invoices or any documentary proof of loss were produced despite being specifically pleaded.
Legal principles established
#- A statutory approval is limited to the parcels expressly covered by it and cannot be extended by pleadings or claims of amalgamation
- Submissions are not evidence; an expert opinion referred to orally but never produced cannot displace formally tendered expert evidence
- Allegations of fraud and forgery must be strictly pleaded and proved to a standard higher than a balance of probabilities
- Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved
- A jurisdictional issue already ruled on attains finality between the parties absent new jurisdictional facts
Court orders
#- 1.A permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from carrying out demolition and/or construction on L.R Nos. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/230 and 104/231, unless and until all planning and environmental approvals have been obtained
- 2.Each Party shall bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (environmental and land disputes)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gichohi & another v Bajuun Properties Ltd & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E049 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5146 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC CASE NO. E049 OF 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5146/eng@2026-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.