On reaffirmtion of the rule of law, the protection of investment, and the importance of lawful, participatory planning by devolved governments: The Case of Claire Kubochi Anami & Others (Suing as Officials of Rhapta Road Residents Association) v County Executive Committee Member, Built Environment & Urban Planning, Nairobi City County & 19 Others

Civil Appeal No. E160 of 2025: Claire Kubochi Anami & Others (Suing as Officials of Rhapta Road Residents Association) v County Executive Committee Member, Built Environment & Urban Planning, Nairobi City County & 19 Others

On 19 September 2025, the Court of Appeal of Kenya issued a landmark judgment in Civil Appeal No. E160 of 2025, significantly shaping the legal landscape on zoning, urban planning instruments, and development control within Nairobi City County. The case concerned development approvals along Rhapta Road in Westlands, and specifically challenged the legality and procedural validity of multi-storey developments in that area.

The Court delivered a progressive and pro-investment decision, affirming the legal rights of developers to proceed with projects up to 20 floors in height. It also provided long-awaited judicial clarity on the planning instruments applicable to Nairobi’s urban development and directed the County Government to regularise and gazette lawful zoning frameworks within six months.

The decision provides long-term legal and regulatory certainty for both developers and investors, while reinforcing the constitutional obligations of county governments under Kenya’s devolved governance framework.

 

Key Judicial Findings and Legal Implications

1. Zoning Classification under Kenyan Law

• The Court confirmed that Rhapta Road falls under Zone 3C, which permits high-density, mixed-use developments of up to 20 floors. This zoning classification aligns with Section 56 of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, 2019 (PLUPA), which empowers county governments to designate and regulate land use zones through legally adopted local physical development plans.
• Developments must still comply with infrastructure thresholds, traffic management standards, and environmental and social impact mitigation measures.

2. Status of Planning Instruments

• 2004 Zoning Guidelines: Declared obsolete and lacking any legal force, having never been formally adopted under the statutory framework now governed by PLUPA.
• NIUPLAN 2016 (Nairobi Integrated Urban Development Master Plan): Recognised as a valid strategic framework for city-wide planning, but the Court clarified that it does not confer parcel-specific development rights, as required under Sections 44 and 45 of PLUPA.
• 2021 Nairobi Development Control Policy: Treated as a legitimate administrative guide, despite not being approved by the County Assembly or gazetted. The Court urged formalisation under Section 52 of PLUPA to ensure legal enforceability.

3. Environmental Compliance

• The Court upheld NEMA licences issued to the developers, finding that the approvals were consistent with the provisions of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA), 1999, and that there was no procedural impropriety or breach of environmental law.
• Objectors failed to prove that the developments posed significant environmental risks or had violated statutory safeguards.

4. Orders Directed at Nairobi City County

• The County Government was compelled to:
• Finalise, approve, and gazette updated zoning plans and development control policies within six (6) months, pursuant to Section 58 of PLUPA.
• Submit interim status reports to the Court to ensure ongoing judicial oversight and transparency.
• This reflects a growing trend in Kenyan jurisprudence where courts impose structural interdicts or supervisory orders to ensure compliance with constitutional and statutory obligations, especially in matters involving public administration and urban governance.

5. Costs

• The Court directed that each party bear its own costs, citing the public interest nature of the dispute. This aligns with Kenyan precedent under Article 22 and Article 258 of the Constitution, where litigants raise constitutional or administrative concerns affecting the general public.

 

Implications for Developers, Investors, and Policy Stakeholders

✅ Legal Certainty on Building Heights

• Developers can lawfully undertake projects of up to 20 floors along Rhapta Road, subject to infrastructure capacity and regulatory compliance under Zone 3C.

✅ Protection of Lawfully Granted Approvals

• The Court reaffirmed that valid approvals granted by NEMA, the Nairobi City County, and other relevant authorities remain enforceable.
• Retroactive invalidation or demolition was expressly declined, protecting property rights under Article 40 of the Constitution.

✅ Urban Planning Reforms Imminent

• The Court’s six-month timeline sets a deadline for zoning reform, and developers should anticipate new gazetted policies that will govern development control and land use going forward.
• This is a key moment for active stakeholder engagement during public participation forums, as required by Article 10 and Article 69(1)(d) of the Constitution and Section 5 of PLUPA.

✅ Alignment with International Best Practices

• The Court’s reasoning reflects global norms in sustainable urban planning, drawing parallels with UN-Habitat guidelines and international urban law, promoting compact, mixed-use, transit-oriented development.
• Nairobi’s legal framework is increasingly harmonised with international urban planning standards, supporting its ambition to become a competitive global city.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in this matter is a watershed moment for urban development law in Kenya. It reaffirms the rule of law, the protection of investment, and the importance of lawful, participatory planning by devolved governments. For developers and urban planners, it is both a green light for current projects and a call to engage in the shaping of Nairobi’s future zoning and infrastructure frameworks.