Developers hit by decision on public participation
National
By
Fred Kagonye
| Aug 23, 2024
A court has delivered a major blow to developers by ruling that communities have a key role in deciding whether new houses or business centers can be built.
In a landmark decision that promises to shake up the construction industry, the Environment and Land Court ruled that developers must clearly state the type of structure they plan to build for public review.
For instance, if a developer wants to change user and build a 20-storey building, they must indicate this and seek approval from the local community.
READ MORE
Trump tariffs threaten Kenya's Sh72b exports
Jubilee posts record Sh6b profit as gross premiums jump 34pc
Portland cement issues Sh48m dividend to Treasury, NSSF
IM bank eyes MSME's in quest for Western's market
Kenyan businesses brace for US tariffs impact
New Levies raise a storm at Mombasa Port
Key details on Trump's market-shaking tariffs
Trump imposes 10pc tariffs on Kenyan goods
Lack of written tenant-landlord agreements hampers tax collection
Previously, developers only provided vague information about the project and change of user.
Justice Benard Eboso said that notices must include the author’s identity and details on how to submit objections. “All the above are key elements in public participation. Without them, the purported notice cannot be said to have satisfied the requirements of the law."
In the case, Markerryl Company, a construction firm picked to build Leerand School in Thika, received a change of user and construction approval from the Kiambu County Executive Committee Member.
The Kisiwa West Estate Residents Welfare Group appealed this decision but a Liaison Committee determined that the company had fulfilled all requirements for public participation and that the approvals were in accordance with the law.
Justice Eboso found that the CECM had already denied the company approval before she had a change of heart after the committee's decision gave her the greenlight.
The judge set aside the approval saying that it lacked public participation. He found that the CECM went 'above board' to perform duties that should be left to the committee.
According to him, failure to involve the community in the decision-making process was fatal enough to render the CECM’s decision unconstitutional.