Kenya’s urban landscape is rapidly transforming due to the population growth and subsequent increased demand for housing. Although high-rise developments alleviate the housing demand to some extent, they pose serious risks to the residents in the area. These risks include, environmental degradation, damaged infrastructure such as roads, sewers, water supply, stormwater drains and power supply, loss of privacy, loss of green spaces, noise, and air pollution. For those at risk, the law provides avenues to challenge developments in their neighbourhoods.

Article 42 of the Constitution of Kenya guarantees every citizen the right to a clean and healthy environment which right includes the right to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations through legislative and regulatory measures. The Physical and Land Use Planning Act (PLUPA) is one such regulation. It outlines the requirements that developers must adhere to prior to commencing any construction of developments. In addition, the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) requires developers to conduct Environmental and Social Impact Assessments before breaking ground. Approval for developments lies with the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) and parties may appeal a decision of NEMA to the National Environment Tribunal (NET) and further to the Environment and Land Court.

Public participation is an essential requirement for the preparation and amendment of county physical and land use development plans.  Additionally, the PLUPA prohibits construction of developments within a county without a development permission from the county executive committee member (CECM). Prior to issuing a development permission, the public is invited to submit any objections on the proposed development project to the CECM. In the judgement delivered on 27 February 2025 in the case of Ken Petrogas Limited v Mohammed & 5 others [Environment and Land Appeal 001 of 2024, KLR (2025) KEELC 857] the court upheld the decision of the NET invalidating an Environmental Impact Assessment Licence upon determining that there was insufficient public participation prior to its issuance. The court emphasized the importance of public participation as a national value prescribed under Article 10 of the Constitution.

The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations require the developers to seek the views of persons who may be affected by the project while conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Further, the Regulations require that NEMA publicize in daily newspapers and on local radio stations the EIA, inviting public comments which may be in the form of a public hearing.

Parties aggrieved by the decisions of the various authorities approving development plans have several avenues of appeal. The PLUPA provides for appeal to the County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee within fourteen (14) days and further appeal to the Environment and Land Court (ELC).

In recent years the judiciary has intervened where developments flout planning laws, zoning regulations, or environmental safeguards. By filing constitutional petitions, applications and appeals, residents have successfully secured injunctions halting ongoing construction, revoked irregularly issued development permissions, and compelled authorities to enforce compliance with statutory requirements. On 10 June 2025, Justice Angote granted Conservatory orders restricting Nairobi City County Government, NEMA, the Ministry of Lands and other regulatory bodies from considering or processing applications for development permissions in several areas in Nairobi such as Kileleshwa, Kilimani, and Lavington pending determination of the suit.

In Anami & 2 others (Suing as Officials of Rhapta Road Residents Association) v CECM Built Environment and Urban Planning & others, [Environment and Planning Petition E030 of 2024 (2025) KEELC 128 (KLR)] the court sided with the petitioners, compelling the respondents to comply with the Nairobi City County Development Control Policy 2021 when granting development permissions in the area and limited the approvals granted to the developers to a maximum of 16 floors in alignment with the zoning laws of the area. However, on 19 September 2025, the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal E160 of 2025, overturned the ELC’s decision. It observed that the 2021 Development Control Policy classified Rhapta Road as Zone 3C with a 20 floor-cap. The Court held that the 2004 Zoning Guidelines were outdated and issued a structural interdict compelling the Nairobi County Government to adopt lawful and up-to-date zoning and development control plans for the whole city, given that the 2021 Development Control Policy did not attain full legal force without the County Assembly’s approval and gazettement.

In Ndambiri & another v Nairobi Metropolitan Services & others [Environmental and Land Petition E026 of 2022 (2024) KEELC 13649 (KLR)] the court issued a temporary injunction against the respondents halting any further development including demolition of buildings or cutting of trees for the development of a residential building. In Bamrah v Botrack Limited [Environmental and Land Petition E0730 of 2025 (2025) KEELC 3068 (KLR)] the court issued a temporary injunction restricting the defendant from continuing with excavations for a proposed development of a 16 level residential apartment as the excavations were a nuisance due to the noise, air pollution, and heavy vibrations damaging the foundation and boundary wall of his house.

Resident associations are fast becoming the key in challenging the development of high-rise buildings and their impact as residents pool resources, coordinate strategies, and present a unified front before the regulatory authorities and the courts. Collective action not only amplifies individual voices but also gives residents legitimacy when engaging with county planning authorities, environmental agencies and the courts.

While high‑rise buildings may offer solutions to housing shortages and stimulate economic growth, it cannot proceed at the expense of community welfare, environmental sustainability or constitutional rights. Residents are not merely observers in the urban development process but active stakeholders through participation in public forums, filing objections to development applications, and contributing to environmental impact assessments.