Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedConstitution Petition No. E009 of 2025· [2026] KEELC 5839 (KLR)

Real Estate Stakeholders Association v County Government of Kiambu & 2 others

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
22 September 2026
2,711 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court lifted interim protection for Kiambu developers, ruling the association failed to prove its claims with actual evidence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Real Estate Stakeholders Association moved the Environment and Land Court at Thika by Notice of Motion dated 26th November 2025 seeking interim conservatory orders suspending the proposed changes to the Integrated Strategic Urban Development Plans and the Draft Kiambu County Spatial Plan, directions that development applications continue to be processed under the prior regulatory framework, and a prohibition on land surrender requirements exceeding what the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, 2019 permits. The Petition alleges the planning measures were adopted without adequate public participation and infringe the rights to property and fair administrative action. The Respondents, through the replying affidavit of Salome Wambui, asserted that the ISUDPs were prepared with extensive public participation, approved by the County Assembly on 23rd December 2024, and implemented under section 45 of PLUPA, and denied that the impugned changes had been implemented or enforced. The Court framed a single issue: whether the interim conservatory order ought to be maintained. Applying the Supreme Court's Munya jurisprudence and the prima facie test in Mrao Ltd, the Court held the Applicant had failed to annex the impugned instruments or to produce any decision linking the delay in development approvals to the planning changes; the connection was inferred, not demonstrated. The Notice of Motion was dismissed, the interim conservatory order vacated, and costs were made in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case for maintenance of the conservatory order

Holding

No prima facie case; the evidential material did not link the impugned planning changes to the alleged infringement or delay

Reasoning

The Applicant failed to annex the ISUDPs and Draft County Spatial Plan whose legality is impugned, so the Court lacked primary material to assess the alleged changes. Correspondence established that applications were made but not that refusal or delay was attributable to the planning changes; the connection was inferred rather than demonstrated.

p. 16
02

The character and test for conservatory orders

Holding

Conservatory orders preserve the constitutional space pending determination; they are granted on inherent merit, public interest and constitutional values

Reasoning

Following the Supreme Court in Munya and Onguto J in Board of Management of Uhuru Secondary School, the Court framed the inquiry as whether the prima facie case, prejudice, constitutional values, substratum and public interest warrant interim preservation, without deciding the constitutional questions in advance.

p. 10

Legal principles established

#
  • A prima facie case for conservatory relief requires more than an arguable claim; the threat of infringement must be demonstrated, not inferred by conjecture
  • Conservatory orders are public-law remedies granted on inherent merit, public interest and constitutional values, not private-law irreparable harm considerations

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 26th November 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.The interim conservatory order is vacated
  3. 3.Costs shall be in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 23(3) of the Constitution (conservatory relief in constitutional petitions)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Real Estate Stakeholders Association v County Government of Kiambu & 2 others", Case Analysis (2026). Constitution Petition No. E009 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5839/eng@2026-09-22

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.