Industrial premises beside a river can face two connected but different problems: uncertainty over the lawful riparian boundary and environmental harm originating outside the property. A title alone does not describe either issue adequately.
English Press relied on historical survey material, development approvals and earlier regulatory correspondence when challenging the application of a nationwide vacation directive. It also sought action against waste dumped beside the Ngong River.
Case identity
- Case: English Press Limited v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Interior and National Administration & 7 others.
- Court: Environment and Land Court, Environment and Planning Petition E025 of 2024.
- Decision date: 18 December 2025.
- Citation: [2025] KEELC 18371 (KLR).
- Primary source: Read the judgment.
The company relied on a history of approvals and complaints
The company operated a printing and packaging facility in Nairobi's Industrial Area. It said the property had been formed through approved amalgamation, with deed plans, building approvals and an environmental licence.
Its account described repeated complaints about dumping near the river. It maintained that waste had obstructed flow and pushed the river towards its boundary. It relied on 2019 water-authority correspondence and a licensed surveyor's work when addressing the reserve (paragraphs 1–7).
The dispute arose against public security orders issued in May 2024 during flooding, directing people within a stated riparian corridor to leave. The company argued that their application to its property threatened lawful development and ignored the earlier site-specific material.
The agencies did not present one common response
NEMA acknowledged the company's licence, audits and complaints but pointed to county responsibility for waste management. The county denied responsibility for the alleged interference, described enforcement difficulties and maintained that the company had not proved its case.
The Water Resources Authority disputed the asserted river movement, relied on satellite imagery and said lawful procedures would be followed if encroachment were established (paragraphs 8–24). These were substantive competing positions, not an entirely undefended environmental petition.
The county also argued that pollution and river alteration required proper technical evidence. The company answered with its survey, correspondence and the authorities' previous involvement (paragraphs 25–39).
What persuaded the court about this property
The court considered the approved property history, earlier compliance confirmations and survey distances from the wall to the riverbank. It found that the asserted uniform 30-metre position lacked a formal site-specific determination and adequate supporting material to displace that evidence (paragraphs 40–52).
It declared the property and its stated developments outside the Ngong River riparian reserve. It also found the vacation orders unlawful as applied to the petitioner, addressing authority and procedural fairness (paragraphs 53–56).
This is not a rule that six metres always suffices beside a Kenyan river. The judgment discussed the regulations relevant to the evidence before it and a range requiring site-specific determination. Nor did the court cancel every riparian enforcement measure nationwide.
The discussion of river movement must also be read accurately: the company alleged artificial displacement and the water authority disputed it. The court's decisive boundary analysis relied on the comparative quality of the survey and regulatory evidence, not a general licence to build wherever a river once flowed.
Environmental relief was a separate part of the result
The court found that the illegal dumpsite required action and examined the respective public responsibilities (paragraphs 57-72). Orders 75(f)-(h) required NEMA, Nairobi City County and the environment Cabinet Secretary to remove the adjacent waste within four months of the judgment and act forthwith to prevent further dumping. They were liable for the petitioner's costs jointly and severally.
It did not grant the separate request to compel the Water Resources Authority to mark out the reserve, finding no basis for that order (paragraph 73).
The final injunction protected the specified premises against interference pursuant to the impugned May 2024 orders. It was not an immunity from future lawful regulation. The cleanup deadline likewise proves what was ordered, not that cleanup happened.
Questions for river-adjoining property
- Which historical plans and site-specific determinations define the relevant reserve?
- Do recent measurements explain their method and reconcile earlier official correspondence?
- What approvals exist, and what precisely did they approve?
- Are external dumping or obstruction complaints documented with the responsible agencies?
- Does a court order concern this parcel, a particular directive or a wider issue?
A later-history search on 11 September 2026 did not verify a subsequent variation. Compliance with cleanup orders, later regulation and current title remain unconfirmed.
Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits. Ask which survey references, orders and unresolved environmental questions can be kept in a dated evidence record. Screening cannot establish a riparian boundary, certify environmental compliance or guarantee detection of river changes. Advocate advice, official records and any necessary technical field checks remain separate. This article is educational, not legal advice.