Njenga v County Government of Laikipia & another (Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5797 (KLR) (23 September 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 5797 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NANYUKI ENVIRONMENT AND LAND PETITION E002 OF 2026 LN MBUGUA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 BETWEEN KENNEDY MWANGI NJENGA ............................................................. APPLICANT AND THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF LAIKIPIA ........................ 1ST RESPONDENT COUNTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER, DEPARTMENT OF LAND, HOUSING, ENERGY & URBAN DEVELOPMENT ................. 2ND RESPONDENT RULING 1. Before me is a Notice of Motion application dated 11th June 2026 led contemporaneously with the petition. The applicant seeks orders as follows; a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from cancellation of approvals, evicting, alienating, repossessing, dispossessing or in any other way denying the petitioner/applicant from operating his welding business within the premises known as LR No. 2787/1366 Nanyuki Municipality, a stay of execution of the enforcement notice dated 29th April 2026 and that the OCS Nanyuki Police Station be directed to ensure compliance with the court orders. 2. The application is premised on the grounds on the face of the application and the supporting adavit of the applicant. He avers that he is the lawful occupier of the suit plot where he has established his light industrial business. He avers that the registered owner of the suit plot obtained approvals from the department of Infrastructure, Land, Energy & Physical Planning and acting on the said approvals he invested on the suit property by setting up a metal works business. However, on 29th April 2026 the 2nd respondent issued him with a notice to cease the business operations on the basis that he had introduced unauthorized oensive light industrial activities. 3. In his submissions dated 25th June 2026 the applicant avers that following the aforementioned enforcement notice he moved to exercise his right of appeal of the decision in accordance with the provisions of Section 72(3) of the Physical and Land use Planning Act. However, his attempts to le https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5797/eng@2026-09-23 1
page 1 of 2
the appeal were futile as he learnt that Laikipia County does not have a functional County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee, and that is why he has moved to this court. 4. Citing the cases of St Patricks Hill School Ltd Vs Bank of Africa Kenya Ltd (2018) KEHC 4886 (KLR), Giella Vs Cassman Brown & Co Ltd (1973) EA 358 and Paul Gitonga Wanjau V Gathuthi Tea Factory Company Ltd & 2 Others (2026)eKLR the applicant contends that he has met the criteria for the issuance of the orders sought. 5. On 29th June 2026 the court directed the respondents to le and serve their responses and submissions by 13th July 2026. However, the said documents were not led until 22nd July 2026 and 29th July 2026 contrary to the court orders. Further, there is no evidence of service of the said documents. In that regard the said documents are hereby disregarded. 6. It follows that the application of the petitioner is unopposed. Nevertheless the court has an obligation to determine the merits of the case as it is not automatic that an unopposed application should be allowed. See the case of Gideon Sitelu Konchellah V Julius Lekakeny Ole Sunkuli & 2 Others (2018)eKLR. 7. I have perused the documents availed by the applicant whereby approvals were given on 11th August 2021 by the County Government of Laikipia department of infrastructure, land, energy and Physical Planning in respect of change of user from single dwelling residential to light industrial in respect of the suit parcel. The enforcement notice given by the County on 29th April 2026 indicates that the works being undertaken by the petitioner are within a designated residential area and as such neighbours have complained of excessive noise and air pollution. The respondents have not given any plausible explanation as to why they were giving approvals in regard to change of user from residential use to light industrial use in such an area. They have also not given an account of the nature of the complaints. 8. An issue has been raised by the applicant that he desired to lodge an appeal in tandem with the provisions of Section 72(3) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act. To this end, the court has found a document termed as the appeal amongst the documents of the applicant. The applicant apparently encountered a hitch in that there is no liaison committee in the County. It is therefore essential for this court to hear the matter fully so that the respondents can give an explanation as to how they adhere to the statutory legal framework set out under the Physical and Land Use Planning Act. In regard to the dispute resolution mechanism. 9. As at now the applicant has the approvals for his business and therefore I nd that the orders sought for are merited. Thus the application dated 11th June 2026 is allowed but the orders shall remain in force for a period of 1 year. The cost of the application shall abide the outcome of the suit and the matter is to be heard expeditiously. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NANYUKI THIS 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS. LUCY N. MBUGUA JUDGE In the presence of: Yaru/Consolata – C/A Mtoto for petitioner Atieno for 1st and 2nd respondents https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5797/eng@2026-09-23 2
page 2 of 2