https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5146

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI** **ELC CASE NO. E049 0F 2023** **DAVID MAINA GICHOHI…………….................................... 1ST PLAINTIFF** **NANCY WANJIRU MAINA GICHOHI………………………...2ND PLAINTIFF** **=VERSUS=** **BAJUUN PROPERTIES LIMITED .......................................1ST DEFENDANT** **COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF NAIROBI………...………2ND DEFENDANT** **NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL** **MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY ..……………………………3RD DEFENDANT** **JUDGEMENT** 1. The Plaintiffs commenced this suit by way of a Plaint dated 8th August 2023, seeking the following orders: * 1. ***An order of permanent injunction restraining the 1st Defendant by themselves their agents and/or servants from demolishing and/or construction on the parcels of land known as L.R No. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/228 which land has been amalgamated with L.R No. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/229, L.R No. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/230 and L.R Nos. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/231;*** 2. ***An order of permanent injunction restraining the 1st Defendant by themselves their agents and/or servants from changing the present use of the land of the parcels of land known as L.R No. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/228 which land has been amalgamated with L.R No. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/229, L.R No. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/230 and L.R Nos. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/231;*** 3. ***As against the 2nd and 3rd Defendant a cancellation of all approvals granted by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants for demolition and construction on the parcels of land known as L.R No. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/228 which land has been amalgamated with L.R Nos. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/229, L.R No. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/230 and L.R No. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/231;*** 4. ***Costs of this suit and interest thereon;*** 5. ***Such other or further relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit and just to grant.*** 2. The 1st Defendant filed a Defence and Counterclaim dated 30th April 2025, and denied the Plaintiffs' claim in its entirety, except to state that it is the registered owner of the four adjacent parcels. 3. In its Counterclaim, the 1st Defendant sought the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' suit and judgment in its favour for: * 1. ***A permanent injunction restraining the Plaintiff, its servants, agents, or any other person acting on its behalf from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the 1st Defendant's quiet and peaceful enjoyment, use, and development of L.R No. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/228, 104/229, 104/230, and 104/231.*** 2. ***A declaration that the 1st Defendant lawfully obtained all the necessary approvals and permits for the development of the aforementioned suit properties, including the Notification of Approval dated 6th December 2022 from the 2nd Defendant and the EIA License dated 30th December 2022 from the 3rd Defendant.*** 3. ***A declaration that the Plaintiff's claims and actions, including the interim injunction, are unwarranted, unsubstantiated. and constitute unlawful interference with the 1st Defendant's proprietary rights.*** 4. ***General damages for loss of use and infringement upon the 1st Defendant's right to quiet and peaceful enjoyment of its property.*** 5. ***Special damages for daily penalties and operational losses incurred at the rate of Kshs. 500,000 per day from 11th July 2024 to the date of resumption of the development works or as shall be assessed by the Court.*** 6. ***Costs of the suit and interest thereon at Court rates.*** 7. ***Such further or other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just and expedient.*** 4. The Plaintiff filed a Reply to the 1st Defendant’s amended Defence and counterclaim dated 21st July 2025, in which they reiterated their claim and denied the Defendant’s claim. The Plaintiffs prayed that the 1st Defendant's Amended Defence and Counterclaim be dismissed with costs, and that judgment in terms of the Amended Plaint 5. The 2nd Defendant filed a Statement of Defence dated 24th September 2024 denying the Plaintiffs’ claim in its entirety. The Plaintiffs filed a reply to the 2nd Defendant’s Defence dated 19th April 2026, asserting that the issue of jurisdiction had already been determined by the Court and that the 2nd Defendant isestopped from raising it again.The Plaintiffs contended that the 2nd Defendant's Defence is a mere denial and does not disclose any reasonable defence. 6. The 3rd Defendant filed aStatement of Defence dated 15th April 2026 denying the Plaintiffs' claim. It urged the Court to dismiss the suit with costs. The Plaintiffs filed a reply to the 3rd Defendant reiterating that the demolition undertaken on the four parcels adjacent to their property was unlawful. **THE PLAINTIFFS’CASE** 1. The Plaintiffs called one witness in support of their case. 2. PW1, David Maina Gichuhi, the 1st Plaintiff, adopted his witness statement as his evidence-in-chief. He also produced the documents in the list and in the supplementary list of documents in support of his evidence. 3. PW1 testified that he is the registered proprietor of L.R. No. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/232 and has resided there since 2002. He informed the Court that he is a member of the Juja Road Estate Sector A welfare group. 4. He further testified that in September 2022, he became aware that the 1st Defendant had purchased L.R Nos. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/228, 104/229, 104/230, and 104/231, which are adjacent to his parcels. 5. He went on to state that, immediately after the purchase and without any notice, the 1st Defendant demolished the houses on L.R Nos. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/228 and 104/229, prompting him to seek intervention from the Estate Committee, as the houses were two parcels away from his. 6. He explained that during the demolition, his house was severely affected, as electricity and water supplies were cut off, and his sewerage system was compromised, rendering him unable to access his home. 7. He testified that sometime in 2022, the Chairperson of the Estate Committee wrote a letter to the Director General of Nairobi Metropolitan Services opposing the change of use for L.R Nos. NAIROBI BLOCK Nos. 104/228 and 104/229. However, no response was received, and the 1st Defendant continued with the actions which have greatly affected him. 8. He further testified that on 26th January 2023, the Estate Committee wrote a letter to the Chief Officer, Urban and Planning and Development, Nairobi County, outlining the grievances of residents and homeowners of the estate, but received no response. The letter was copied to the 3rd Defendant, who promised to address the issues within 14 days, but had yet to respond. Similarly, their advocate wrote a letter to the 1st Defendant on 31st May 2023. 9. He contended that, despite raising protests, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants failed to fulfil their mandate, thereby allowing the 1st Defendant to proceed with demolishing the houses without regard to his rights as a homeowner. 10. He went on to state that sometime in June 2023, his advocate wrote a letter to the County Executive Committee Member for Built Environment and Urban Planning requesting urgent action, but no response was received. 11. He testified that the 1st Defendant obtained the 2nd Defendant's approval on 6th October 2022, without the 3rd Defendant conducting an environmental impact assessment. He asserted that the 1st Defendant submitted fictitious signatures to the 3rd Defendant to demonstrate that the residents and owners of Juja Road Sector A did not oppose the development, contrary to what was actually on the ground. He asserted that there was no public participation before the advertisement of the change of user, nor was a board erected on the site to inform the residents of the change. 12. He further testified that the approvals relied upon by the 1st Defendant pertain to L.R. Nos. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/228 and 104/229, and do not extend to parcel No. L.R No. 104/231, which is adjacent to his property. He maintained that he had never seen any development approval or Environmental Impact Licence relating to L.R No. 104/231. 13. It was his evidence that one of the conditions attached to the approval required the proposed development to preserve the residential character and density of the neighbourhood. He maintained that the construction of a high-rise mixed-use development was inconsistent with the planning character of Juja Road Sector A, which was intended for single-dwelling units. 14. He further testified that on 14th June 2023, the Estate Committee filed an appeal before the Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee challenging the approval of the proposed development for L.R Nos. Nairobi Block 104/228, 104/229, 104/230, and 104/231. He stated that the appeal was never heard or determined. 15. He informed the Court that L.R No. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/231 shares a common wall, foundation, and roof with L.R No. 104/232, his property. The Plaintiffs are apprehensive that the demolition of the adjacent structure could compromise the structural integrity and safety of their house. 16. He further testified that an enforcement notice had been issued, describing the development as unlawful. In conclusion, he urged the Court to grant the orders sought in the Plaint. 17. On cross-examination, he testified that he had not sought confirmation from the County Government regarding the validity of the approvals issued to the 1st Defendant. He admitted that he had not lodged any complaint with the relevant authorities claiming that the signatures in the questionaires were fictitious. He also testified that he had no correspondence with Kenya Power or Nairobi Sewerage regarding any complaints that the services to his home were disrupted. 18. He maintained that the EIA licence related only to L.R. Nos. 104/228 and 104/229 and not to L.R. No. 104/231. He reiterated that no development permission had been granted for L.R. No. 104/231 and that he had not been invited to any public participation exercise concerning that parcel. 19. In re-examination, he clarified that the Notification of Approval was dated 6th October 2022, whereas the change of user was advertised on 18th April 2023. He insisted that the signatures were fictitious because no board had invited residents. He stated that they did not know when the public participation was conducted. 20. PW2, Engineer Elijah Ochieng Musa, a structural engineer, adopted his witness statement as his evidence in chief. He also produced his report in support of his evidence. PW2 testified that he carried out a structural assessment of L.R No. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/232 belonging to the Plaintiffs. He testified that L.R. Nairobi Block 104/231 and L.R. No. 104/232 constitute a single structural unit, sharing a foundation, a slab, a common roof, and a common wall extending to the foundation. He stated that the demolition of the structure erected on L.R No. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/231 would affect the structural integrity of the Plaintiffs’ house. 21. On cross-examination, he stated that his assessment included a site visit, visual inspection, and measurements. He testified that he did not undertake soil investigation because it was unnecessary. He also testified that, during the study, he found that L.R. No. 104/232 was in good condition. 22. In cross-examination by Migele, he stated that his investigation was limited to assessing the structural impact of demolishing the structure adjacent to the Plaintiffs’property. He maintained that the demolition of the structure on L.R No. 104/231 would affect the Plaintiffs’property. **THE 1ST DEFENDANT’S CASE** 1. The 1st Defendant called one witness in support of its case. 2. DW1 Mohammed Abdi Ibrahim, a director of the 1st Defendant, adopted his witness statements dated 17th July 2024 and 20th April 2025 as his evidence-in-chief. He also produced the documents in the list dated 17th July 2025 and 30th April 2025 in support of his evidence. 3. DW1 testified that the 1st Defendant is the registered proprietor of L.R Nos. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/228, 104/229, 104/230, and 104/231. He further testified that the 1st Defendant acquired the parcels with the intention of developing a residential property and obtained all the necessary approvals. 4. He further testified that on 6th December 2022, the 2nd Defendant issued a Notification of Approval authorizing the proposed development on the amalgamated plots Nos L.R Nos. 104/228 and 104/229. 5. He stated that on 30th December 2022, the 3rd Defendant issued an EIA licence confirming compliance with environmental regulations under EMCA. He denied the Plaintiffs' allegations that the development was carried out without public participation. He maintained that public participation was conducted and denied that fictitious signatures were used during the exercise. 6. He further denied that the proposed development shares a wall with the Plaintiff's property or that the demolition works were undertaken unlawfully. 7. DW1 testified that, before the Court issued the injunction on 9th August 2024, the 1st Defendant had already mobilized contractors, equipment and resources in accordance with the approvals granted. He stated that the suspension of the project caused substantial loss, including penalties for contractual breaches and costs associated with idle equipment at Kshs 500,000/= per day. 8. In conclusion, he urged the Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs' suit and allow the counterclaim as prayed, 9. On cross-examination, he testified that although the four parcels (L.R. Nos. 104/228, 104/229, and 104/231) had been amalgamated, no amalgamation number had been issued. He testified that L.R Nos. 102/228 and 104/229 were amalgamated in 2022, before the titles were issued. 10. He confirmed that he resides on House No. 3 on L.R. No. 104/230, while the 1st Plaintiff occupies the adjoining house on L.R No. 104/232. He admitted that the two houses share a dividing wall beneath the roof. DW1 conceded that an Environmental Impact Assessment was conducted in respect of L.R. Nos. 104/228 and 104/229, not for L.R. Nos. 104/230 and 104/231. 11. He denied having seen the enforcement notice relied upon by the Plaintiffs before the commencement of these proceedings and maintained that it had never been displayed at the site. He confirmed that the demolished structure had not been reinstated. 12. Regarding the counterclaim, DW1 maintained that the 1st Defendant suffered losses at the rate of Kshs. 500,000/= per day following the suspension of the development. He further testified that he attended the public participation exercise but could not recall the names of the residents who participated or whether they were tenants. He confirmed that there was no EIA Licence for L.R No 104/231 and 104/232. 13. On cross-examination by Mr Migele, he confirmed receipt of the EIA licence and stated that no letter revoking it had been received, that questionnaires had been duly completed, and that no complaint of forgery had come to his attention. 14. In re-examination, he maintained that L.R. No. 104/231, which shares a foundation with the 1st Plaintiff's property, had not been demolished. He further stated that an engineer engaged by the 1st Defendant had advised that the proposed development posed no risk to neighbouring properties. He conceded that he had not produced documentary evidence to support the loss claimed. **THE 2ND DEFENDANT’S CASE** 1. The 2nd Defendant did not call any witnesses in support of its case. **THE 3RD DEFENDANT’S CASE** 1. The 3rd Defendant called one witness in support of its case. 2. DW2, Jimmy Owiti, an Environmental Officer of NEMA, adopted his witness statement dated 20th April 2026 as his evidence in chief. He also produced the documents in the listed dated 15th April 2026 in support of his evidence. DW2 testified that on 1st November 2022, the 1st Defendant submitted an EIA project report to the 3rd Defendant in respect of a proposed residential development on L.R Nos. 104/228 and 104/229, situated in Pangani. He stated that the proposed project the construction of a 17-storey residential building, comprised various residential units and associated amenities. 3. DW2 denied the Plaintiffs' allegations that there was inadequate public participation. He maintained that the 3rd Defendant adhered to the prescribed procedures for stakeholder engagement, including consultation with lead agencies and the community. 4. Regarding public participation, he argued that it was impractical to give every individual a chance to express their opinions; instead, representatives from various stakeholder groups were involved to ensure a comprehensive understanding of community concerns. 5. He further testified that the 3rd Defendant conducted a thorough review, including an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. He stated that the report addressed the community's concerns and that NEMA’s officers visited the proposed site to evaluate its compatibility with the surrounding environment, which is characterised by a mixed commercial and residential development. After considering the EIA report and noting the absence of any significant environmental risks, the 3rd Defendant issued a licence to the 1st Defendant on 30th December 2022, subject to specific conditions to ensure ongoing compliance with environmental standards throughout the project’s lifecycle. 6. He insisted that the 1st Defendant had obtained all the statutory approvals for the proposed development in accordance with the law. In conclusion, he urged the Court to dismiss the suit against the 3rd Defendant with costs. 7. In cross-examination by Ms Etole, he testified that although he participated in the EIA review process, he did not personally visit the site. He acknowledged that although the EIA report indicated the land was bare, the site visit record shows that the area was occupied. He confirmed that both the site inspection and the EIA undertaken by the 3rd Defendant relate only to L.R. Nos. 104/228 and 104/229. 8. DW2 explained that the questionnaires used during the public participation were issued to persons likely to be affected by the proposed development, with objections raised addressed through mitigation measures. He confirmed that the 3rd Defendant did not receive any response to its letter dated 1st November 2022. 9. On cross-examination by Mr Ahmed, DW2 confirmed that the EIA Licence issued to the 1st Defendant had not been revoked. He reiterated that the purpose of public participation is to obtain views of persons likely to be affected. 10. In the re-examination, he testified that the 3rd Defendant is required to undertake a site inspection in respect of every application for an EIA, which may require additional information where necessary before making its decision. 11. After the close of the hearing, the parties agreed to file and exchange their written submissions. **THE PLAINTIFFS’ SUBMISSIONS** 1. The Plaintiffs filed their submissions dated 10th June 2026. 2. On behalf of the Plaintiffs, Counsel outlined the following issues for the Court’s determination: *a) Whether the approvals obtained by the 1st Defendant from the 2nd Defendant were lawful, procedural and regular;* *b) Whether the EIA licence was lawful, procedural and regular;* *c) Whether the proposed development violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights; and* *d) What reliefs were available to the Plaintiffs?* 1. Regarding the first issue, Counsel submitted that the 2nd Defendant had, by a Notification of Approval dated 6th October 2022, approved a change of use from residential to commercial cum residential in respect of L.R No. Nairobi/Block 104/228. It was argued that although the 1st Defendant claimed that the four parcels had been amalgamated, he could not specify when the amalgamation occurred or identify the resulting parcel number. Counsel submitted that the 1st Defendant’s witness confirmed that the approval related solely to L.R No. 104/228. Counsel contended that no amalgamation had been established, and even if any approval had been obtained, it did not extend to L.R No. Nairobi/Block 104/231, which shares a common wall, foundation, roof, and first-floor slab with the Plaintiffs' property. 2. Counsel further submitted that the Notification of Approval was subject to twelve conditions, including the requirement that an environmental impact assessment be undertaken and a NEMA licence obtained prior to the commencement of works, and that the development must maintain the residential character and densities of the area. Counsel argued that none of these conditions had been met with respect to L.R. No. 104/231. Counsel contended that Juja Road Estate, Sector A, consists of single dwelling maisonettes, and that a multi-storey residential development would not preserve the area's character or density as required. 3. Counsel argued that the public notice dated 18th April 2023, advertising the proposed change of use for the parcels, was inconsistent with the 1st Defendant’s development permission dated 6th October 2022, as no change of use had been advertised or obtained. 4. Counsel further submitted that the Enforcement Notice dated 7th August 2023, which directed the 1st Defendant to cease further illegal development and restore the building to its original condition within fourteen days, was an admission by the 2nd Defendant that the works were unlawful. It was submitted that the 1st Defendant neither contested nor complied with the notice. It was further submitted that the approvals obtained for L.R No. 104/228 lacked a legal basis to extend to other parcels, thereby rendering the demolition of the structure on L.R No. 104/231 unlawful. 5. Counsel submitted that the EIA licence issued by the 3rd Defendant on 30th December 2022 pertained to L.R Nos. Nairobi/Block 104/228 and 104/229 for a proposed seventeen-storey building, not L.R Nos. 104/230 or 104/231. Counsel further submitted that the project report identified these latter two parcels as bare land covered with vegetation, whereas a structure was present on L.R No. 104/231, indicating that the report could not have related to those parcels. Counsel contended that the questionnaires relied upon by the 3rd Defendant as evidence of public participation concerned L.R Nos. 104/228 and 104/229, and lacked any list confirming that the respondents were homeowners or otherwise affected persons. Accordingly, Counsel maintained that no public participation had been conducted in respect of L.R Nos. 104/230 and 104/231. 6. Counsel further submitted that the questionnaires were dated 25th September 2022, the development permission for L.R No. 104/228 was dated 6th October 2022, and the change of user was advertised only on 18th April 2023, an inconsistency that confirmed that the purported public participation did not relate to 104/230 or 104/231. It was submitted that the 3rd Defendant admitted that no public participation had been carried out in respect of L.R Nos. 104/230 and 104/231, and that the 1st Defendant should not have commenced demolition or construction in the absence of this constitutional requirement. To support this point, Counsel cited Article 69(1)(d) and Article 10 of the Constitution. 7. Counsel argued that there was no evidence indicating any change to the approval for L.R No. 104/228 that would necessitate new public consultation. Counsel maintained that the demolition breached Section 58 of the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act because there was no EIA project report for L.R Nos. 104/230 and 104/231. 8. Counsel submitted that the proposed development would violate the Plaintiffs' rights under Articles 4o, 42 and 47 of the Constitution. It was submitted that the planned seventeen-storey building would cast shadows over the Plaintiffs' property, leading to a loss of privacy, increased traffic congestion, reduced access to light and ventilation, and heightened air and noise pollution. Counsel contended that this would unjustifiably interfere with the Plaintiffs' peaceful enjoyment of their land, which they purchased with the understanding that the area was designated as a low-density residential neighbourhood. 9. Counsel relied on the evidence of PW2, whose unchallenged report confirmed that L.R Nos. 104/231 and 104/232 share a common wall, foundation, first-floor slab, and roof, and that demolishing the structure on L.R No. 104/231 could not be undertaken without affecting the structural integrity of the Plaintiffs' property on L.R No. 104/232. 10. Regarding the right to a clean and healthy environment, Counsel submitted that this right encompassed the ability of citizens to raise concerns about environmental impact, and that the lack of public participation on the parcel adjacent to the Plaintiffs' property has denied them this opportunity. Counsel cited **Adrian Kamotho Njenga v Council of Governors & 3 Others [2020] KEELC 3929 (KLR) and Patrick Kamotho Githinji & 4 Others v Resjos Enterprises Ltd & 4 Others [2016] KEELC 503 (KLR).** 11. Counsel submitted that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the conditions for the grant of a permanent injunction. 12. Regarding the 1st Defendant's claim for special damages of Kshs. 500,000/= per day, Counsel argued that the claim lacked merit, as the 1st Defendant had begun demolishing the houses before obtaining the necessary approvals, including the EIA licence, had applied for licences related to a different parcel for the demolition in question, and was therefore responsible for his own misfortune. It was further submitted that the 1st Defendant did not provide any documentary evidence, such as contracts, invoices, or proof of penalties paid, in support of the alleged daily loss. Based on the foregoing, Counsel urged the Court to grant the orders sought in the Plaint and dismiss the Counterclaim with costs. **THE 1ST DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSIONS** 1. The 1st Defendant filed its submissions dated 15th June 2026. 2. On behalf of the 1st Defendant, Counsel argued that the Plaintiffs' mid-trial attempt to recharacterize their case constitutes a procedural irregularity in the conduct of the suit. Counsel submitted that, having alleged in the Plaint that L.R Nos. Nairobi Block 104/228, 104/229, 104/230, and 104/231 were amalgamated, and having stated that the demolition across all four parcels was undertaken to facilitate a mixed-use development, the Plaintiffs could not later argue at trial that the approvals and EIA licence were limited to two parcels. 3. Counsel submitted that this amounts to a judicial admission under Section 61 of the Evidence Act, which is binding on the Plaintiffs and gives rise to estoppel under Section 24 of the Act. Counsel further submitted that parties are bound by their pleadings and cannot deviate from them. To support this point, reliance was placed on **Raila Amolo Odinga & Another v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 Others [2017] eKLR, Daniel Otieno Migore v South Nyanza Sugar Company Limited [2018] eKLR, and Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & Another v Stephen Mutinda Mule & 3 Others [2014] eKLR.** 4. Counsel further submitted that the Plaintiffs cannot both claim amalgamation to support their case and then assert separateness to challenge the 1st Defendant's approvals. Counsel contended that under the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, 2019, an approval granted for a consolidated project covers the entire project without the need for separate enumeration of each sub-parcel. 5. Counsel submitted that the 1st Defendant presented uncontested documentary evidence of a Notification of Approval from the County Government of Nairobi dated 6th October 2022 and an EIA Licence issued by NEMA dated 30th December 2022, both of which carry the legal presumption of regularity and can only be challenged by cogent, clear, and uncontroverted evidence. To support this point, reliance was placed on **Kibos Distillers Limited & 4 Others v Benson Ambuti Adega & 3 Others [2020] KECA 875 (KLR).** 6. It was submitted that the Plaintiffs failed to present any such evidence, having called no forensic document examiner, handwriting expert, or official from NEMA or the County Government to support their claims of procedural irregularity and fictitious signatures. It was also argued that, since fraud had been alleged, it needed to be specifically pleaded and proven beyond the usual balance of probabilities. To support this point, reliance was placed on **Vijay Morjaria v Nansingh Madhusingh Darbar & Another [2000] KECA 223 (KLR) and Gladys Wanjiru Ngacha v Teresa Chepsaat & 4 Others [2013] eKLR.** Counsel further contended that neither the 2nd nor the 3rd Defendants had filed any pleadings or evidence indicating that their processes had been compromised. 7. Counsel submitted that reliance on the Enforcement Notice dated 7th August 2023 was misconceived, as it was a preliminary administrative measure under Section 72 of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, 2019, and not a judicial or quasi-judicial finding of illegality. To support this point, Counsel cited **Immaculate Gicuku Mugo v Kiambu County Government [2021] eKLR**. It was also argued that the notice alone cannot override lawfully granted approvals issued prior to its issuance. Counsel contended that the notice appeared to have been issued during the pendency of the suit, after construction had already ceased pursuant to the interim injunction. 8. Regarding the development approval dated 6th October 2022, Counsel argued that it was not open to the Plaintiffs, as third-party neighbours, to retrospectively define its spatial extent. Furthermore, the newspaper advertisement for change of use dated 18th April 2023 did not prove that there was no change of use at the time of approval, as development permission and change of use are separate processes that can occur simultaneously. 9. Regarding Condition 7 of the approval, Counsel stated that the sequence of development approval in October 2022, followed by the EIA licence in December 2022, was consistent with compliance. Counsel submitted that the Plaintiffs had not proven that the demolition occurred before the licence. Concerning Condition 11, Counsel argued that its enforcement was a matter for the issuing authority, which had not raised any complaints, and that the Plaintiffs' own photographic evidence showed multi-dwelling and high-rise developments in the surrounding area. Counsel emphasized that Section 76 of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, 2019, provides the correct avenue for appeal to the Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee, a forum the Plaintiffs themselves had used in the ongoing case No. NCCG/PLUPLC/021 of 2023. 10. Regarding the EIA licence issued on 30th December 2022, Counsel submitted that the Plaintiffs, having pleaded amalgamation, could not now argue that the assessment was incomplete due to the lack of a separate enumeration of each sub-parcel. Counsel also contended that NEMA, as the issuing authority, did not present any evidence limiting the scope of the licence. Counsel further argued that any admission obtained from a NEMA witness in oral testimony cannot override NEMA's formal position as a party that the licence still subsisted, and that the presumption of regularity. Counsel further submitted that describing the project area as "bare land" in the EIA report was a general classification not meant for selective mining. Counsel argued that the proper forum to challenge the validity or scope of an EIA licence was the National Environment Tribunal under Section 125 of EMCA. 11. Counsel submitted that the public participation exercise met the threshold established in **Mui Coal Basin Local Community & 15 Others v Permanent Secretary Ministry of Energy & 17 Others[2015] KEHC 473 (KLR),** which requires providing the interested parties a reasonable opportunity, not mathematical unanimity or a unilateral right of veto. Further reliance was placed on **Isaac Gitoho & 2 Others v Director General, NEMA & Another [2017] KEELC 1024 (KLR),** where it was held that a proponent's duty was to create an opportunity for participation, not to solicit every affected person. 12. Counsel submitted that the 1st Plaintiff, David Maina Gichohi, had completed the questionnaire used in the public participation exercise, and that the chairperson of the local homeowners' committee had also recorded remarks and signed the form. Counsel submitted that neither NEMA nor the County Government had presented evidence demonstrating that the process was flawed. Counsel reiterated that the proper avenue for challenging the adequacy of the EIA process was the National Environment Tribunal. To support this point, Counsel cited **Ken Kasing'a v Daniel Kiplagat Kirui & 5 Others[2015] KEHC 1181 (KLR) andKibos Distillers(supra).** 13. Counsel argued that PW2's structural report concluded that no significant defects were observed on the Plaintiffs' property, confirming it was in good condition and expected to perform according to its original design. It was contended that this written finding takes precedence over oral explanations given during the trial. 14. It was further argued that the claim regarding a shared wall, foundation, and slab was a technical engineering issue not supported by soil tests, photographs, or other evidence. In any case, PW2 had recommended engineering safeguards such as retaining structures, monitoring, phased works, and hoarding, rather than a permanent ban on development. Counsel also stated that no demolition occurred on L.R No. 104/231, that no actual damage had been caused to the Plaintiffs' property, and that the case before the court involved perceived, rather than actual, harm. Counsel cited **Vitalis Peter Lukiri v George Odongo Ogwang [2015] eKLR** to submit that rights under Article 40 of the Constitution should not be interfered with on grounds of speculative injury. 15. Counsel submitted that a permanent injunction requires proof of a clear and existing legal right, with actual or imminent infringement demonstrated by concrete evidence, and the inadequacy of any other remedy. To support this argument, **Giella v Cassman Brown & Company Limited [1973] EA 358**. 16. It was submitted that the Plaintiffs have no interest in the suit properties, that an altered neighbourhood character was not recognised in law as causing irreparable harm, that no actual injury had been demonstrated, that any structural risk was speculative, and that damages would in any case be an adequate remedy. Counsel argued that a permanent injunction in these circumstances would amount to a constructive, uncompensated deprivation of the 1st Defendant's property rights under Article 40(1) of the Constitution. 17. Counsel argued that this prayer was legally unsustainable because the approvals were issued by competent statutory bodies acting within their mandates. Counsel contended that a civil court does not sit as an appellate body over such administrative decisions in the absence of proof of illegality or fraud. Counsel pointed out that neither the 2nd nor the 3rd Defendants supported the cancellation, which would violate the 1st Defendant's right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act. 18. Counsel argued that the Plaintiffs' reliance on Articles 40, 42, 47, 69, and 70 improperly aimed to elevate a planning and neighbourhood dispute to a constitutional claim where adequate statutory frameworks already existed. Counsel contended that constitutional claims require the precision outlined in **Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic (No. 1) [1979] 1 KLR 154,** which the Plaintiffs' claims did not meet. 19. Regarding Article 40, Counsel submitted that the issues complained of, such as loss of privacy, traffic, reduced light, and pollution, were ordinary urban development concerns rather than constitutional violations. Counsel argued that Article 40 equally protects the 1st Defendant's right to develop its land. Regarding Article 42, Counsel accepted the precautionary principle as recognised in **Patrick Kamotho Githinji & 4 Others v Resjos Enterprises Ltd & 4 Others [2016] KEELC 503 (KLR),** but argued that it applied only in cases of genuine scientific uncertainty and cannot replace expert evidence. Counsel distinguished that authority on the basis that it concerned a project undertaken without an EIA licence, unlike the present case, where a valid licence had been obtained, and noted that the entitlement referenced in **Adrian Kamotho Njenga v Council of Governors & 3 Others [2020] KEELC 3929 (KLR)** required evidence of actual or imminent harm, which the Plaintiffs failed to provide. On Article 47, Counsel argued that the Plaintiffs' grievance was essentially a restatement of the public participation issue. Counsel submitted that Article 47 did not grant a unilateral right of participation, and that the appropriate remedy lay before the National Environment Tribunal or the Liaison Committee. 20. Counsel argued that the Plaintiffs' case, when properly examined, amounted to a challenge by a dissatisfied neighbour to a legally approved development on land they did not own. 21. In conclusion, Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs case and allow the 1st Defendant’s Counterclaim with costs. **THE 2ND DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSIONS** 1. The 2nd Defendant filed its submissions dated 25th May 2026. 2. On behalf of the 2nd Defendant, Counsel submitted that it was clear from the record that the Notification of Approval of Development Permission dated 6th October 2022 was limited to L.R No. Nairobi Block 104/228. Counsel argued that the 1st Defendant’s claim, asserting that the approval for the change of use extended to three parcels, was therefore false. It was further submitted that the only basis on which the Plaintiffs could have properly implicated the 2nd Defendant would have been if it had granted a change of use approval for L.R No. Nairobi Block 104/231, the parcel which, according to the Plaintiffs' own expert, PW2, shared a common foundation with the Plaintiffs' property, L.R No. Nairobi Block 104/232. It was submitted that no such approval had been granted. Counsel added that the 2nd Defendant's Enforcement Notice dated 7th August 2023, aligned with this position, as the development permitted in favour of the 1st Defendant had related solely to L.R No. 104/228. 3. Regarding the cause of action, Counsel cited **Attorney General & Another v Andrew Maina Githinji & Another, Nyeri Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2015 [2016] eKLR,** where the Court of Appeal approved the definition in **Letang v Cooper [1964] 2 All ER 929,** that a cause of action is a factual situation that entitles a person to a remedy against another. Counsel also referred to the definitions endorsed in that decision from **Drummond Jackson v British Medical Association (1970) 2 WLR 688 and Read v Brown (1889) 22 QBD 128,** describing a cause of action as an act by a defendant that leads to the plaintiff's complaint, or every fact the plaintiff must prove, if challenged, to support the judgment sought. 4. Applying these principles, Counsel submitted that the Plaintiffs had no cause of action against the 2nd Defendant, as no fault had been established on its part based on the evidence. Counsel submitted that the development permission dated 6th October 2022 was limited to L.R No. 104/228, a parcel that neither adjoins nor shares a common foundation with the Plaintiffs' property. Counsel further submitted that the Plaintiffs' claim of a combined approval covering three parcels was false. In conclusion, Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the suit against the 2nd Defendant be dismissed with costs. 5. The 3rd Defendant did not file any submissions. **ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION** 1. Having considered the pleadings, the evidence on record, and the submissions by the parties, the following issues arise for determination: a) *Whether this Court has jurisdiction hear and determine this suit;* *b) Whether the approvals issued by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants lawfully authorized the impugned development.* *c) Whether there was compliance with public participation requirements* *d) Whether the Plaintiffs established a violation or a threatened violation of their constitutional and proprietary rights.* *e) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought; and* *f) Whether the 1st Defendant is entitled to the orders sought in the counterclaim.* **WHETHER THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THIS SUIT** 1. The record shows that the Court previously ruled on the issue of jurisdiction raised in a preliminary objection by the 2nd Defendant and dismissed it. That ruling has neither been reviewed nor appealed. The issue, therefore, attained finality between the parties and cannot be properly reopened in the final judgment unless new jurisdictional facts emerge, which is not the case here. **WHETHER THE APPROVALS ISSUED BY THE 2ND AND 3RD DEFENDANTS LAWFULLY AUTHORIZED THE DEVELOPMENT** 1. The main issue in this dispute is whether the approvals relied upon by the 1st Defendant authorized the demolition and proposed development on all the four parcels. The Plaintiffs challenged the validity of the approvals granted by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants on several grounds. Regarding the development approval, it is not in dispute that the 2nd Defendant issued a Notification of Approval of Development dated 6th October 2022 for L.R No. 104/228. A further Notification of Approval dated 6th December 2022 was issued for the amalgamated plot Nos L.R 104/228 and 104/229. 2. It is not in dispute that the 1st Defendant is the registered owner of the Nairobi Block L.R Nos. 104/228, 104/229. 104/230 and 104/231. The dispute relates to the scope of those approvals. 3. The Plaintiffs contend that the Notification of Approval dated 6th October 2022 pertains solely to L.R No. Nairobi Block 104/228 and did not authorize demolition or development on L.R Nos. 104/230 and 104/231. They also contend that the change of user from a single dwelling to commercial cum residential use was not lawfully obtained and that the statutory process leading to its approval, including public participation, was fundamentally flawed. 4. The 1st Defendant maintained that it lawfully obtained all the necessary planning approvals from the 2nd Defendant and that the four parcels had been amalgamated. 5. The Court has carefully examined the documentary evidence relating to the approvals. The Notification of approval dated 6th October 2022 expressly refers to L.R No. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/228, while the Notification of Approval dated 6th December 2022 relates to L.R Nos. 104/228 and 104/229. No corresponding notification of approval relating to L.R. Nos. 104/230 or 104/231 was presented before the Court. Although the 2nd Defendant, the issuing authority, did not call a witness, its written submissions expressly acknowledged that the Notification of Approval dated 6th October 2022 related only to L. R. No. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/228, and that it never granted approval for L.R. No. 104/231. 6. The 1st Defendant sought to overcome this difficulty by asserting that the four parcels had been amalgamated before the development commenced. However, during cross-examination, DW1 admitted that no amalgamation number had been issued. The Court was not presented with documentary evidence demonstrating that the statutory process of amalgamation had been completed before the commencement of the impugned development. 7. The 1st Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs pleaded that the parcels had been amalgamated and are therefore estopped from challenging the scope of the approvals. The issue of whether the approvals existed is a matter of documentary evidence, not pleadings. An amalgamation proposal cannot, on its own, expand the scope of statutory approvals. Every approval granted by a statutory authority derives its authority from the document issued by that authority and must be interpreted in accordance with its terms. Neither the Court nor the developer can extend an approval to land that is not explicitly covered by it without evidence of amendment, variation, or re-issuance by the issuing authority. In light of the foregoing, I find that the development approvals granted by the 2nd Defendant are limited to the parcels stipulated therein. I also find that they are not applicable to L.R No 104/231. 1. Turning to the Environmental Impact Assessment Licence, the record also shows that it was issued by the 3rd Defendant on 30th December 2022. DW2 confirmed that the environmental assessment was conducted for L.R. Nos. 104/228 and 104/229. The Plaintiff maintained that no EIA assessment was carried out for L.R. No. 104/231. The 1st Defendant contended that the parcels had been amalgamated and, accordingly, the approvals applied to the entire development. The 3rd Defendant did not present any amended project report, supplementary assessment or variation of the licence extending the assessment to parcel No. L.R No. L.R No. 104/230 and 104/231. The Court therefore finds that the Plaintiff’s parcel No. L.R. No. 104/232 was not subject to environmental assessment prior to demolition. DW2 confirmed that the environmental impact assessment process was limited to L.R Nos. 104/228 and 104/229. 2. The Plaintiffs also relied on the evidence of PW2, who testified that L.R. No. 104/231 and the Plaintiffs’ property, L.R No. 104/232, constitute a single structural unit sharing a common wall, foundation, roof and first-floor slab. He opined that demolishing one unit would inevitably affect the structural stability of the adjoining unit. Although Counsel for the 1st Defendant criticised the report for failing to include soil investigations, PW2 explained that the purpose of the investigation was to assess the structural consequences of demolishing an adjoining building that shares common structural elements. 3. During cross-examination, PW2 consistently maintained that the two buildings shared common structural components. That evidence was neither shaken nor displaced. Although DW1 asserted that he engaged another engineer who found no structural risk, that report was never presented to the Court. The law is settled that submissions are not evidence. An expert opinion referred to in oral testimony, but never produced, cannot displace expert evidence that has been formally tendered and subjected to cross-examination. Consequently, the only expert evidence properly before the Court establishes that the demolition of L.R No. 104/231 presents a genuine structural risk to the Plaintiff's property. 4. In light of the foregoing, this Court is satisfied that the approvals relied upon by the 1st Defendant clearly existed in respect of L.R No. 104/228 and 104/229 did not authorize the demolition of 104/230 and 104/231. No comparable evidence was produced demonstrating that the statutory approvals extended to L.R. Nos. 104/230 and 104/231. 5. The Plaintiffs also challenged the validity of the change of user. They relied on the public notice published on 18th April 2023, inviting objections to the proposed change of user. They argued that the publication demonstrates that the process had not been completed when the development and approval were granted. They also argued that the demolition began before the statutory process was completed. 6. The 1st Defendant submitted that development approval and change of use are separate statutory processes that can proceed concurrently. 7. While it is correct that development permission and change of use are separate statutory processes under the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, both must ultimately comply with the law before a development can proceed. The evidence before the Court shows that the approvals relied upon by the 1st Defendant did not extend to L.R No. 104/230 and 104/232. Consequently, the 1st Defendant cannot rely on that approval as authority for development beyond the parcels expressly covered by the planning approval. **WHETHER THERE WAS MEANINGFUL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BEFORE THE APPROVALS WERE GRANTED** 1. The Plaintiff also challenged the validity of the approvals on the ground that there was no meaningful public participation prior to their grant. They contended that they were neither notified nor involved in the process and only became aware after the demolition commenced. The 1st Defendant disputed that claim and maintained it had complied with all the statutory requirements relating to public participation. It relied on the newspaper publication, inviting objections to the proposed change of the user. The 3rd Defendant maintained that the EIA process included public participation and that the comments received were considered. 2. Public participation is a constitutional obligation arising from Articles 10, 42, and 69 of the Constitution. It is also reinforced by the provisions of EMCA and PLUPA. 3. The Court accepts that public participation does not require every resident to participate personally, but it provides an opportunity for persons affected to express their views. 4. In the matter at hand, DW2 established that the environmental impact assessment process only related to L.R Nos. 104/228 and 104/229. The Plaintiffs did not present evidence to challenge that process in relation to those parcels. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that the 1st Defendant complied with the public participation requirements regarding L.R Nos. 104/228 and 104/229. 5. However, the evidence equally establishes that the environmental impact assessment process and the attendant public participation did not extend to L.R Nos. 104/230 and 104/231. The 1st Defendants contended that the four parcels had been amalgamated, but no documentary evidence of such amalgamation was produced. Consequently, while this Court finds that public participation was conducted for L.R Nos. 104/228 and 104/229, it cannot be held that the same process covered L.R. Nos. 104/230 and 104/231. The questionnaires relied upon by the Defendants related to those parcels. It is clear that the public participation undertaken could not lawfully validate development on the parcels that were not subjected to that process. 6. The Plaintiffs challenged the authenticity of the signatures on the questionnaires, asserting that they were fictitious. Allegations of fraud and forgery are serious in nature and must be strictly pleaded and proved to a standard higher than a balance of probabilities. The Plaintiffs did not adduce any cogent evidence to prove that the signatures were forged. No expert evidence was tendered to demonstrate that the impugned signatures were forged. Consequently, this Court finds that the requirement for meaningful public participation was satisfied on in respect of the parcels expressly covered by the approvals and EIA Licence. **WHETHER THE PROPOSED DEMOLITION AND DEVELOPMENT VIOLATED THE PETITIONERS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 40, 42 AND 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION** 1. The Plaintiffs invoked Articles 42 and 69 of the Constitution to argue that their right to a healthy environment had been violated. However, the burden was on them to demonstrate that the impugned development had caused or threatened environmental harm within the meaning of Article 42 of the Constitution or that the constitutional obligations under Article 69 had been infringed. 2. Upon evaluating the evidence, the Court finds that no environmental expert testified on pollution contamination, degradation of natural resources, or any other environmental harm arising from the proposed development. The evidence presented mainly addressed the legality and scope of the planning approvals, and the environmental impact assessment licence, and the structural implications of demolishing the adjoining building, which does not establish a violation of Articles 42 or 69 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Court declines to make any declaration that those provisions were violated. 3. The Plaintiff contend that their right to fair administrative action under Article 47 was violated because the appeal they had lodged challenging the planning approvals was never heard or determined. 4. The right to fair administrative action includes the right to have administrative proceedings conducted expeditiously, efficiently, reasonably and in a fair manner. The Plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the county government failed to facilitate or otherwise enable the committee to discharge its mandate. The mere fact that the appeal remained unresolved does not, on its own, establish a violation of Article 47 of the Constitution. **WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO THE ORDERS SOUGHT** 1. The Plaintiffs also sought a permanent injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from demolishing or constructing on the suit properties. A permanent injunction is an equitable remedy granted upon proof of an actual or threatened infringement. The Plaintiffs demonstrated that they are the owners of L.R No. 104/232, which is adjacent to L.R. No. 104/231. The Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the approvals relied upon by the 1st Defendant did not extend to their property, L.R. No. NAIROBI BLOCK 104/232. 2. Consequently, the Court is unable to grant the injunction in the broad terms, as doing so would restrain parcels that have approvals. To issue a blanket permanent injunction restraining the development on all four parcels would extend beyond the evidence before the Court and unjustifiably interfere with the 1st Defendant’s proprietary rights in respect of the parcels for which approvals. This Court therefore issues a permanent injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from demolishing or carrying out construction activities on L.R No. 104/231 and 104/232. 3. The Plaintiffs sought an order against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants for cancellations of the approvals granted for parcels Nos. 104/228, 104/229, 104/230 and 104/231. The Court has already found that the approvals were lawfully issued. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants are statutory bodies charged with the responsibility of considering and determining applications for development permission and environmental approvals in accordance with their respective statutory mandates. The Court has not found that they acted unlawfully in issuing these approvals. In light of the foregoing, I decline to grant the relief. Similarly, no evidence was led by the approving authorities to show that the approvals had been revoked or declared invalid. Consequently, this Court is unable to find that the approvals issued to the 1st Defendant were unlawfully obtained. 4. The Plaintiffs seek an order restraining the 1st Defendant from changing the user for the suit properties. The Court has not found that the approval for the change of user was unlawfully obtained. Granting such an order would unjustifiably interfere with the 1st Defendant's proprietary rights and the statutory mandate of the planning agencies under the Physical and Land Use Act. It would be disproportionate to restrain the 1st Defendant from undertaking any future lawful development on the suit properties. 5. The Court is alive to the fact that the 1st Defendant is the registered Proprietor of L.R Nos 104/228, 104/229, 104/230 and 104/231 and is generally entitled to develop its properties in accordance with the law. The Court has not found that the development approvals and the EIA Licence were issued unlawfully or that the suit properties are incapable of development. 6. The Court therefore finds that the 1st Defendant is entitled to undertake development on those parcels in accordance with the approvals granted and subject to compliance with the conditions attached thereto. However, the 1st Defendant cannot extend the development to parcels that have not been subjected to the statutory planning and the environmental approval process. **WHETHER THE 1ST DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO THE ORDERS SOUGHT IN THE COUNTERCLAIM** 1. The 1st Defendant sought a permanent injunction restraining the Plaintiffs from interfering with its quiet possession of L.R Nos. 104/228-231. It is not in dispute that the 1st Defendant is the registered owner of the suit properties. The Plaintiffs instituted these proceedings challenging the legality of the approvals and have established that the approvals do not relate to L.R No. 104/230 and 104/231. The Court has found that the development approval issued by the 2nd Defendant and the EIA Licence issued by the 3rd Defendant related to L.R 104/228 and 104/229. The permanent injunction sought is framed in broad terms and would authorise development on parcels for which statutory approvals were not provided. I therefore find that the 1st Defendant has not established a legal basis for the grant of a permanent injunction in the terms sought. 2. The 1st Defendant also seeks a declaration that the Plaintiffs unlawfully interfered with the 1st Defendant's proprietary rights. The Plaintiffs approached the Court seeking enforcement of constitutional and statutory rights. The evidence does not establish malice, abuse of process, or bad faith on the part of the Plaintiffs. They were therefore justified in approaching the court. I therefore find that the 1st Defendant has not laid a basis for the grant of the order sought. 3. The 1st Defendant also sought a declaration that it obtained all the necessary approvals and permits for the development from the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. The evidence on record shows that the approvals granted were validly issued in respect of L.R Nos. 104/228 and 104/229. No development approval or EIA Licence was presented in respect of L.R Nos. 104/230 and 104/231. Accordingly, a declaration cannot issue in the broad terms as pleaded. 4. The 1st Defendant sought damages for loss of use of its property. 5. The 1st Defendant has not demonstrated that the Plaintiffs instituted this suit maliciously, unlawfully, or without reasonable cause. In the circumstances, no basis has been established for an award of general damages. The claim for general damages is declined. 6. The 1st Defendant also seeks special damages for losses incurred at the rate of Kshs 500,000/- per day from 11th July 2024. Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved. Although the amount was specifically pleaded, proof was lacking. DW1 testified that contractors had been mobilised and that substantial loss had been suffered. However, during cross-examination, he candidly admitted that he did not produce any contracts, invoices, payment schedules, bank statements, audited accounts, penalty notices, contractor claims, payment vouchers, or any documentary evidence supporting the alleged daily loss. In light of the foregoing, the claim for special damages is declined. Based on the foregoing, I find that the 1st Defendant’s counterclaim is not merited and is hereby dismissed. 7. In the end, this court issues the following orders: 8. ***A permanent injunction is issued restraining the 1st defendant from carrying out the 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. For avoidance of doubt, the order shall not affect the 1st defendant's right to proceed with the development on L.R Nos. 104/228 and 104/229 in accordance with the approvals lawfully issued and conditions attached thereto.*** 9. ***Each Party shall bear its own costs.*** **JUDGMENT DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 31ST DAY OF JULY 2026.** **..............................** **T. MURIGI** **JUDGE** **IN THE PRESENCE OF:-** Ms Etole for the Plaintiffs Faith Kiende for the 1st Defendant Vena – Court Assistant