Lavington residents, through Millennium Gardens Management Ltd, moved to court last year to stop Metricon from proceeding with the construction on Mbaazi Avenue.
Residents of Mbaazi Avenue in Nairobi's Lavington area have escalated their legal fight against the planned construction of three 16-storey apartment blocks, lodging an appeal at the Supreme Court after successive losses in lower courts.
The dispute, which pits homeowners against developers and government regulatory bodies, hinges on alleged violations of zoning laws, environmental rights and procedural irregularities in urban planning approvals.
At the heart of the case is Metricon Homes Nairobi Limited's proposal to build three 16-storey high apartment blocks with 512 housing units—comprising 336 one-bedroom, 144 two-bedroom, and 32 three-bedroom apartments—on a one-acre plot adjacent to Millennium Gardens, a gated community of four-storey townhouses.
The Mbaazi Avenue Residents Association (MARA) and Millennium Gardens Management Limited argue that the project violates Nairobi's 2004 zoning guidelines, which restrict buildings in the area to four storeys.
They also claim the development will block sunlight, strain infrastructure and disrupt the neighborhood's character.
Lavington residents, through Millennium Gardens Management Ltd, moved to court last year to stop Metricon from proceeding with the construction on Mbaazi Avenue.
Additionally, they argue that the development will affect the water supply, overwhelm roads, and overstretch sewerage systems, "thus threatening the petitioners' right to a clean and healthy environment."
"The deep excavation threatens the structural integrity of existing buildings due to shared underground rock formations, and the current drainage system would become overstressed," says their advocate Dudley Ochiel in documents filed at the Supreme Court.
Beginning of dispute
The legal battle began in 2023 when the residents sued Metricon, the National Environment Management Authority (Nema), and Nairobi City County Government at the Environment and Land Court (ELC). They accused Metricon of bypassing proper public participation and ignoring environmental concerns raised in expert reports.
However, the ELC dismissed the petition in September 2024, ruling that Metricon had complied with legal requirements and that the outdated 2004 zoning guidelines had been superseded by Nairobi's draft 2021 Development Control Policy — a document the residents insist was never formally adopted.
Undeterred, MARA and Millennium Gardens appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the ELC erred by relying on an unapproved draft policy. The Appellate Court, however, upheld the decision, asserting that the 2021 policy—bearing a stamp marked "NCCA APPROVED 10 FEB 2022" — was valid. This ruling came despite evidence showing the policy was only tabled before the County Assembly five days later.
"The appellate court ignored MARA and Millennium Gardens' submission that the 2021 policy could not have been approved on February 10, 2022, because it was tabled five days later, on February 15, 2022," says advocate Ochiel.
The residents contend this was a critical misstep, as the policy was still undergoing public review and had been replaced by a 2023 draft by the time the case was filed.
Now, they want the Supreme Court to decide whether the lower courts acted unlawfully by applying an unapproved policy to justify the high-rise development.
The petitioners accuse the Court of Appeal of ignoring evidence that the project would cause irreversible harm, violating constitutional rights to a clean environment (Article 42) and fair administrative action (Article 47). They also argue that allowing construction without clear zoning laws breaches the "precautionary principle," which mandates caution where environmental risks are uncertain.
As the case moves to the Supreme Court, it raises fundamental questions about Kenya's urban governance. The petitioners argue that allowing massive developments based on draft policies—particularly when those policies contradict standing regulations—sets a dangerous precedent that undermines constitutional protections.
For now, Lavington's fate hangs in the balance, caught between the ambitions of developers and the determination of homeowners unwilling to surrender their skyline without a fight.
The case is pending before the Supreme Court.
Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.
