SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Rassam & 3 others v Murengi (Environment & Land Case 116 of 2016) [2024] KEELC 404 (KLR) (2 February 2024) (Judgment)

[2024] KEELC 404 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
404
Citation
[2024] KEELC 404 (KLR)
Decided
2 February 2024
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeLand and Environmental DisputePostureAppeal from an original trial decisionCoramMAO Odeny
The Plaintiffs have locus standi and the Defendant has not complied with the Environmental Management and Coordination Act 1999.

Facts

The Plaintiffs are trustees of a Mosque and have a plot of land known as Plot 48 in Vipingo Squatter Settlement Scheme, Kilifi County. The Defendant constructed a wall on this land without necessary approval from the National Environment Management Authority.

Issues

  • Plaintiffs' locus standi
  • Defendant's compliance with Environmental Management and Coordination Act 1999

Reasoning

The court held that the Plaintiffs are trustees of the Mosque and have a valid claim to the land, and that the Defendant's construction was illegal due to lack of necessary environmental approval.

Outcome

The Plaintiffs' claims were upheld.

Orders

  • Declaration of the wall's illegality
  • Demolition of the unlawfully constructed structure
  • Damages and interest
  • Costs of the suit

Remedies

  • Declaration
  • Demolition
  • Damages
  • Costs

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Environmental Management and Coordination Act 1999
  • Physical Planning (Building and Development) (Control) Rules [Rev. 2012]
Cases cited (2)
  • Law Society of Kenya v Commissioner of Lands & 2 others [2001] eKLR
  • Alfred Njau and Others -Vs- City Council of Nairobi [1982] KAR 229
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case