A court has allowed a developer planning to establish a family restaurant in Karen to pursue a case accusing residents and their association of trespassing, harassment and interfering with his property.
Environment and Land Court Judge Oscar Angote sitting in Nairobi dismissed an application by Forest Lane Residents Limited and Karen and Langata District Association (KLDA) chairman Samora Sikalieh seeking to have the case filed by Cedars Restaurant against them thrown out.
The defendants had argued that the dispute was mainly about an advertising signboard allegedly erected on a public road reserve and that the developer should have first explored alternative ways of resolving the disagreement before going to court.
But the judge ruled that the dispute went beyond the signboard, with the developer also accusing the defendants of repeatedly entering its premises without permission, threatening workers and interfering with its use of the property.
The Milimani Law Courts in Nairobi.
Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group
"The Plaintiff's cause of action also encompasses allegations of repeated unauthorised entry onto private land, threats against its occupants, destruction of property and interference with its possession," Justice Angote stated in a ruling delivered on October 29.
The case involves Hillary Soi, named as the first defendant, Forest Lane Residents Limited and Sikalieh, who is sued as KLDA chairman.
Cedars Restaurant says it acquired the property in 2023 and planned to remodel existing structures into a family restaurant.
Through its director, Wellington Omodho, the company told the court that it obtained approvals from Nairobi City County to change the property's use from residential to commercial and renovate the premises.
It accused Soi of entering the property on March 6, 2026, allegedly acting on instructions from the other defendants, and pulling down its signboard.
The company further claimed that members of the residents' association repeatedly entered the premises, demanded to see its approvals and threatened its staff and directors.
However, Forest Lane Residents Limited and Sikalieh disputed the claims, saying the signboard stood on a public road reserve rather than the developer's private land.
They argued that the property was public land managed by Nairobi City County and the National Land Commission, meaning the developer could not claim exclusive ownership of the area where the signboard was erected.
The residents also questioned the approvals relied on by the developer, saying the change-of-use approval and renovation permit were issued to other individuals and could not automatically be transferred to the new owner.
Sikalieh further argued that the proposed commercial development was being challenged in a separate court case over alleged failure to involve residents in public participation and breaches of Karen's local development plan.
The residents wanted the court to strike out the case, arguing that the developer had failed to identify a valid basis for accusing them of trespass.
They also maintained that disputes relating to outdoor advertising should first be addressed through alternative dispute resolution as provided for under the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act.
But Justice Angote found that the developer's complaints could not be reduced to a disagreement over an advertising signboard.
The judge said the law requires parties involved in outdoor advertising disputes to make reasonable efforts to resolve their differences before approaching the courts.
However, he noted that the developer was also seeking protection against alleged interference with its private property, making the dispute broader than advertising regulation.
On the question of the permits issued to previous owners, the judge said the developer's right to complain about alleged trespass was separate from the question of whether it could rely on approvals issued to other people.
He observed that the company's ownership of the property was not disputed in the application before her.
The judge also declined to determine whether the signboard stood on private land or a public road reserve, saying the matter required evidence during the hearing.
"Whether the signboard stood within the titled property or on a road reserve, whether the the first accused acted pursuant to lawful County authority, and whether the other alleged entries occurred are disputed matters requiring determination upon evidence," she said.
The judge dismissed the application dated April 29, 2026, and ordered the second and third defendants to pay the costs.
