Losing an appeal against a neighbouring development does not necessarily give the developer unconditional permission to build. In this Nairobi dispute, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of residents' environmental petition while emphasising continuing licence conditions. It also directed the county to put a development plan in place.
What the residents challenged
The case was Mbaazi Avenue Residents Association and another v Metricon Home Nairobi Company Limited and two others, Civil Appeal No. E1010 of 2024. The Court of Appeal at Nairobi delivered its judgment on 3 October 2025, reviewing the dismissal of Nairobi ELC Petition No. E121 of 2023. This was an appeal on the petition's merits, not a determination of competing ownership claims. (Page 1, paragraph 1; page 39, paragraph 37; page 84.)
The residents raised concerns about building density, excavation, sunlight, air, water, sewerage and public participation. These were their pleaded concerns, not findings that all the predicted harm had occurred. Metricon and the regulators relied on the environmental assessment process, development approvals and mitigation measures. The petition sought declarations, an injunction and other relief. (Pages 2-23, paragraphs 2-22.)
Why the approval record mattered
The appellate court noted that the approvals issued by NEMA and Nairobi City County had not themselves been challenged before the trial court or another tribunal. For this appeal, it therefore proceeded on the basis that they had been validly issued, pointing to the prescribed routes for challenging them. That is not a fresh audit of whether construction complied with every condition. (Page 61, paragraph 59.)
The residents also disputed the use and status of the 2021 county development-control policy. On the evidence before it, the court treated that policy as operative and declined to treat the proposed 2023 policy, still undergoing public participation, as its replacement. It found no demonstrated basis to disturb the trial court's zoning finding. These are the findings in this judgment, not advice on the zoning rules applicable today or to another property. (Pages 63-68, paragraphs 63-73.)
Environmental duties survived the decision
The court accepted the trial judge's reliance on the EIA report and licence conditions addressing excavation, drainage, traffic and water supply. It also rejected the argument that the residents' expert report had been ignored: the report had been considered against the developer's assessment and licence. (Pages 69-71, paragraphs 74-77.)
The judgment did not reject the precautionary principle. It recognised that full scientific certainty is unnecessary before responding to threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage. However, it found that the record did not establish threats warranting the relief sought. Crucially, it explained that the project could still be stopped in future if licence conditions were not followed. (Pages 71-75, paragraphs 78-85.)
Public participation was another distinct question. The court found that it had been adequately undertaken and that stakeholder concerns had informed licence conditions. Participation required an opportunity to present views and their consideration, not acceptance of every proposal. The court expressly declined to decide whether future compliance would occur. (Pages 77-79, paragraphs 88-92.)
The exact outcome
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, because it was public-interest litigation. The Court of Appeal also discharged the conservatory orders it had granted on 4 April 2025. Those interim protections should not be confused with the final appellate disposition. (Pages 82-84, paragraphs 97-99.)
There was an additional direction: Nairobi City County had to ensure that a county physical and land use development plan, or its equivalent, was in place within twelve months of the judgment's delivery. After that period, the appellants could move the ELC for appropriate compliance orders. The court described this as additional to structural directions in a separate appeal, not their replacement. (Pages 83-84, paragraph 98.)
Questions for a development file
- Which exact approvals cover the proposed size and use, and which licence conditions still require action?
- What official zoning document and mapped zone applied at the relevant date, and who can confirm the current position?
- How were residents' objections reflected in licence conditions, and what technical records address compliance?
- Which statutory process addresses the particular approval or alleged breach, and do later orders affect the available route?
These questions call for the relevant approval files and qualified Kenyan legal, planning or environmental advice, not an inference from a neighbouring building's height.
Source and present-day limits
This note uses the official Judiciary October 2025 archive, specifically the 84-page E1010 judgment, paragraphs 1-99, read on 30 September 2026. Later appeals, reviews, enforcement and planning compliance have not been independently verified for this article. The note does not establish present enforceability, current approvals or site conditions.
If considering ArdhiScore, review its screening scope and limitations. Screening does not establish ownership, certify planning or environmental compliance, or guarantee that every relevant record will be found.