A Nairobi court has refused to stop the construction of a contested apartment project in Kilimani, ruling that nearby residents cannot reopen an earlier decision that allowed the development to proceed.
- •The dispute centers on a parcel off Turbo Road, where a private developer is putting up a multi-storey residential building next to an established residential compound.
- •A residents’ association and several individuals have been fighting the project since 2024, arguing it violates planning rules, exceeds height limits, and threatens their right to a clean and healthy environment.
- •Once a low-density suburb of standalone homes, Kilimani has rapidly transformed into one of Nairobi’s most contested high-rise zones, driven by rising housing demand, zoning shifts, and the economics of land use that favor vertical development.
In February 2025, the Environment and Land Court declined to issue temporary orders halting construction and the residents’ latest move sought to review the case to block the project.
They framed the request around what they described as newly uncovered evidence. The group argued that the land’s lease restricts development to limited site coverage, that Nairobi’s 2021 development policy caps buildings in the area at around four storeys, especially near critical infrastructure such as State House, and that the project could rise far beyond that. They also said the building’s scale now visibly blocks light, air, and access, worsening the impact on neighboring homes.
The developer and Nairobi City County officials pushed back, describing the application as a repeat of arguments already rejected. They said all necessary approvals had been issued and that the project fits a broader shift toward higher-density housing in Kilimani, where similar high-rise developments have proliferated. They also argued that the residents were using a procedural shortcut to avoid appealing the earlier ruling.
The judge drew a sharp line in his verdict and stated that a court can review a decision only in limited circumstances, such as when genuinely new evidence emerges that could not have been obtained earlier. It cannot be used to relitigate the same dispute or introduce arguments that should have been made the first time.
The court found that the lease terms, planning policies and location of the property were all information that could have been obtained with reasonable effort before the 2025 ruling. The Nairobi development policy cited by the residents has been publicly available since 2021, and a later appellate decision discussing it did not transform it into new evidence. Claims about proximity to the State House and security installations could likewise have been established earlier through basic inquiry.
“The Petitioners have not explained why a survey report could not have been commissioned earlier if they considered proximity to strategic installations to be central to their case. Review cannot be founded on evidence which a party could, through ordinary diligence, have procured and presented at the time of the original application,” Judge Oscar Angote ruled.
The judge also rejected reliance on how the building has progressed since the earlier ruling, noting that changes on the ground after a decision cannot justify reopening it. Those developments may form the basis of a new complaint, but not a review of an old one. The residents had waited nearly a year to return to court and offered no explanation for the delay, which the judge described as excessive.
Because the earlier request to halt construction had already been decided, the court said it had no basis to issue fresh stop orders unless the original ruling was successfully reviewed. The result leaves the developer free to continue building, reinforcing a pattern in Nairobi’s fast-changing residential zones where courts have been reluctant to interrupt approved projects without clear evidence of illegality.
Developers have increasingly replaced single-family houses with multi-storey apartment blocks, often exceeding a dozen floors, arguing that densification is essential to meet urban demand and make efficient use of scarce land near the city center.
However, some residents have pushed back against high-rise development citing strained infrastructure, blocked light and privacy, and what they see as inconsistent enforcement of planning rules.
