- within Environment topic(s)
- in United States
- with readers working within the Property industries
- within Environment, International Law and Law Department Performance topic(s)
The Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. E160 of 2025 (arising from Environment and Planning Petition E030 of 2024 by officials of the Rhapta Road Residents Association) ("Rhapta Road Case"), and the Environment and Land Court ("ELC") in Petition E012 of 2025, Kamalkumar Rajinkant Sangahani & 2 others (for and on behalf of Parklands Residents Association) vs Nairobi City County Government & 5 others ("Parklands Case"), issued orders imposing mandates on the Nairobi City County Government ("NCCG") on 19 September and 14 October 2025, respectively.
It is notable that both cases were initiated by residents' associations, highlighting not only the significant influence such associations can exert in Kenyan real estate space, but also their role in exposing the non-procedural manner in which county governments have been handling real estate developments. By bringing these issues before the courts, the residents' associations have enabled judicial scrutiny of county practices, prompting the courts to hold county officials accountable and compel them to fulfil their statutory obligations.
This analysis assesses the conflicts, similarities and differences between the two cases, noting that both impose mandates on NCCG. Each case addresses systemic planning‑governance gaps in Nairobi under the Physical and Land Use Planning Act (Cap 303) ("PLUPA") and imposes time‑bound, supervisory obligations on NCCG to regularize planning instruments, with a strong emphasis on public participation, transparent processes, and adherence to statutory frameworks.
Rhapta road case
The Court of Appeal identified a "structural governance gap" stemming from reliance on outdated or ungazetted instruments and issued a structural interdict. It held that the 2004 Nairobi City Development Ordinances and Zones Guidelines (the "2004 Zoning Guidelines") are no longer binding; the Nairobi Integrated Urban Development Master Plan 2016 ("NIUPLAN 2016") is strategic (city‑wide) but does not provide parcel‑level zoning; and the 2021 Nairobi City Development Control Policy (the "2021 Policy") can guide administrative decisions but is not binding absent County Assembly approval and gazettement. The Court then fashioned a supervisory, time‑bound order with a reporting timetable and stakeholder engagement. Read more about the case in our detailed article here.
Parklands case
The ELC found that NCCG had not complied with mandatory duties under PLUPA (County Consultative Forum, County and Local plans) and declared breaches of constitutional rights to dignity and to a clean and healthy environment. The Court aligned with binding appellate directives and focused relief on the outstanding statutory omission (constituting the County Physical and Land Use Planning Consultative Forum) and set clear timelines, including prospective consequences for non‑compliance.
Side‑by‑side comparison
A comparison of the cases reveals that the Rhapta Road Case's scope was city‑wide (including the Rhapta Road corridor and other high‑density zones), whereas the Parklands Case imposed County‑wide duties and a Parklands‑specific Local Plan.
The Rhapta Road Case requires comprehensive zoning and development control plans under PLUPA, including local physical and land use development plans and/or a development control code. The Parklands Case requires the County physical and Land Use Development Plan; a Parklands Local Physical and Land Use Development Plan; and the constitution of the County Physical and Land Use Planning Consultative Forum.
- On the legal status of existing instruments, the Rhapta Road Case held that the 2004 Zoning Guidelines were not binding, NIUPLAN 2016 was only strategic, and the 2021 Policy was usable as a guide but not binding unless approved and gazetted. The Parklands Case adopted the same approach: policies and strategies cannot substitute for statutory plans, and progress or intent does not cure non‑compliance.
- On public participation, the Rhapta Road Case emphasised that participation is mandatory, must be meaningful, should include consultations with professional bodies, and requires transparent treatment of core development parameters. The Parklands Case reinforced statutory participatory safeguards via the consultative forum and PLUPA regulations.
- On timelines, the Rhapta Road Case ordered NCCG to finalise, obtain County Assembly approval, and gazette city‑wide zoning and development control instruments within six months; to file an interim progress report within three months; and to submit a final compliance report at six months. The Parklands Case ordered NCCG to constitute and operationalise the County Physical and Land Use Planning Consultative Forum and file a compliance report within six months; and to formulate and gazette the County Plan and the Parklands Local Plan within twelve months. The ELC further held that any approvals issued after twelve months would be null and void if non‑compliance persisted.
- On existing approvals, the Rhapta Road Case avoided wholesale invalidation, stating that approvals obtained in good faith should not be retroactively penalised absent specific illegality, and that pending applications should proceed under PLUPA with interim guidance. The Parklands Case similarly declined blanket nullification, recognised appellate guidance, focused on forward compliance and attached consequences prospectively.
Is there a conflict?
The mandates do not materially conflict; rather, they are complementary.
The Rhapta Road Case imposed a stricter, earlier deadline (6 months) to finalise and gazette city‑wide zoning and development control instruments, with reporting milestones.
The Parklands Case, acknowledging binding appellate directives, ordered the constitution of the County Consultative Forum within six months and set a twelve‑month deadline to finalise and gazette the County Plan and the Parklands Local Plan, attaching a prospective nullity for future approvals if deadlines are missed.
There is no substantive mandate requiring contradictory action.
Key similarities
Both courts diagnose a statutory and constitutional governance deficit under PLUPA and the Constitution.
Both insist that legally binding plans and policies must be approved through the County Assembly and gazetted; interim or draft policies may guide administratively but cannot substitute for statutory plans.
Both require meaningful public participation and transparent parameter‑setting (plot ratios, heights, setbacks, infrastructure concurrency, etc.).
Both adopt supervisory or time‑bound remedial frameworks rather than blanket nullification of existing approvals. Both anchor relief in constitutional values (rule of law, transparency, intergenerational equity) and emphasise PLUPA's mandatory nature.
Principal differences
The Rhapta Road Case frames a city‑wide structural interdict with explicit interim and final reporting and retained supervision whilst the Parklands Case tailors relief to the outstanding omission (Forum) and the Parklands Local Plan, while acknowledging existing appellate structural orders.
The Parklands Case declares rights violations (dignity and clean and healthy environment), awards costs, and introduces a clear consequence for non‑compliance (future approvals void after twelve months), whereas the Rhapta Road Case emphasises proportionality and investment‑backed expectations without retroactive penalties.
The Rhapta Road Case sets a six‑month horizon for city‑wide instruments; the Parklands Case sets six months for the Forum and twelve months for County and Parklands Local Plans, aligning its orders with appellate timelines referenced in its judgment.
Conclusion
The mandates in the Rhapta Road Case and the Parklands Case are aligned and complementary. In summary, NCCG must constitute the statutory County Physical and Land Use Planning Consultative Forum within six months; finalise, approve through the County Assembly, and gazette lawful, binding County and Local physical and land use development plans (including Parklands) within the court‑ordered timelines; conduct meaningful public participation and adhere to PLUPA's processes and standards; and report to the courts on progress, noting that future approvals may be void if non‑compliance persists.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
