A Nairobi court has dismissed an application by Kilimani residents seeking to halt the construction of a disputed apartment complex, ruling that the matter had already been settled and could not be reopened.
The case revolves around a plot along Turbo Road, where a private developer is erecting a multi-storey residential building adjacent to an existing housing compound. Since 2024, a residents’ association alongside several individuals has opposed the development, claiming it breaches planning regulations, exceeds permitted height limits, and undermines their right to a clean and healthy environment.
Kilimani, once characterised by low-density standalone homes, has in recent years evolved into a hotspot for high-rise developments, fuelled by surging housing demand, zoning adjustments, and the financial logic favouring vertical expansion.
In February 2025, the Environment and Land Court declined to grant interim orders stopping the project. The residents’ latest bid sought a review of that decision in a renewed attempt to block construction.
They argued that fresh evidence had emerged, including claims that the land lease restricts site coverage, that Nairobi’s 2021 development guidelines limit buildings in the area to roughly four storeys, particularly near sensitive installations like State House, and that the project significantly exceeds those limits. They further contended that the building’s scale has already begun to obstruct light, airflow, and access for neighbouring properties.
However, the developer, backed by Nairobi City County officials, dismissed the application as a rehash of previously rejected claims. They maintained that all required approvals were secured and that the project aligns with Kilimani’s broader shift towards higher-density housing. They also accused the residents of attempting to sidestep the appeals process.
In his ruling, the judge emphasised that court reviews are only permissible under narrow conditions, such as the discovery of genuinely new evidence that could not have been obtained earlier. He made it clear that the process cannot be used to revisit old arguments or introduce points that should have been raised initially.
The court determined that the issues cited by the residents, including lease conditions, planning policies, and the property’s location, were all accessible before the 2025 ruling with reasonable diligence. The 2021 Nairobi development policy had long been in the public domain, and references to nearby State House and security installations could have been verified earlier.
Judge Oscar Angote noted that the petitioners failed to justify why key evidence, such as a survey report, was not obtained in time. He added that a review cannot rely on information that could have been presented during the original proceedings.
The judge also dismissed arguments based on the building’s current progress, stating that developments occurring after a ruling cannot serve as grounds for reopening a case. While such changes might justify a fresh legal challenge, they do not warrant a review of an earlier decision. He further criticised the nearly year-long delay in returning to court, calling it excessive and unexplained.
Also Read: House Team Backs Technology To Monitor Police Conduct During Protests
With the initial request to stop construction already determined, the court held that no new stop orders could be issued unless the previous decision was successfully reviewed. As a result, the developer is free to proceed with the project.
The ruling underscores a broader trend in Nairobi’s rapidly evolving residential landscape, where courts have shown reluctance to interfere with approved developments absent clear evidence of illegality. Developers continue to replace single-family homes with high-rise apartments, often rising well above a dozen floors, citing the need to meet urban housing demand and maximise limited land near the city centre.
Nonetheless, opposition from residents persists, driven by concerns over overstretched infrastructure, reduced privacy, diminished natural light, and what they perceive as uneven enforcement of planning regulations.
