Mwembelegeza Community Residents v County Government of Mombasa & 3 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E002 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8603 (KLR) (10 December 2025) (Ruling)

Mwembelegeza Community Residents v County Government of Mombasa & 3 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E002 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8603 (KLR) (10 December 2025) (Ruling)

The 1st respondent failed to demonstrate discovery of new and important matter, error on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason to warrant review of the orders. Steps taken after the orders, including public participation and proposals for alternative use, do not justify review. The application is without merit and is dismissed with costs to the applicant.

Citation
[2025] KEELC 8603 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mwembelegeza Community Residents; 1st Respondent: County Government of Mombasa; 2nd Respondent: National Environment Management Authority; 3rd Respondent: Secretary, County Government of Mombasa; 4th Respondent: Director General, National Environment Management Authority (NEMA)
Court
Environment and Land Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
10 December 2025
Case Number
Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E002 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Application to Review/set Aside Previous Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Mandamus, Contempt of Court, Review of Court Orders, Public Participation
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Environmental Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Mandamus Contempt of Court Review of Court Orders Public Participation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mwembelegeza Community Residents

Applicant

County Government of Mombasa

1st Respondent

National Environment Management Authority

2nd Respondent

Secretary, County Government of Mombasa

3rd Respondent

Director General, National Environment Management Authority (NEMA)

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Ruling on Application to Review/set Aside Previous Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st respondent met the threshold for review, variation or setting aside of the ruling of 29th January 2025 and orders of 4th February 2025
  2. 2 Who should bear the costs of the application

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st respondent failed to demonstrate discovery of new and important matter, error on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason to warrant review of the orders. Steps taken after the orders, including public participation and proposals for alternative use, do not justify review. The application is without merit and is dismissed with costs to the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated 24th July 2025 is dismissed.
  • The 1st respondent to pay the applicant’s costs.