Nairobi’s skyline is changing rapidly. Across the city’s residential neighbourhoods, developers are putting up high-rise apartment blocks where bungalows once stood, responding to a growing urban population and strong demand for housing. The economics are compelling, and for the most part, the regulatory framework accommodates this growth

The facts of the Mbaazi Avenue dispute are Metricon Home Nairobi Company Limited, a developer, sought to construct three blocks of sixteen-storey residential apartments on a one-acre parcel of land along Mbaazi Avenue in the Thompson area of Lavington. Metricon obtained all the requisite approvals, an Environmental Impact Assessment license from the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), approvals from the Nairobi City County, and a license from the National Construction Authority. It held public participation meetings, placed notices in the press, and ran advertisements on radio. By any conventional measure, the developer had done what the law required. And yet the development sparked a dispute that has now wound its way through the Environment and Land Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Kenya, with the substantive appeal still pending determination as at the time of writing.

The residents’ grievances centred on three broad concerns. First, that the development fell outside the applicable zoning regulations and exceeded the permitted height for the area. Secondly, that the public participation process, while conducted, was not meaningful, in that views were gathered but never genuinely considered. Lastly, they contended that the construction threatened their constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 42 of the Constitution of Kenya. In particular, they pointed to the strain on already stretched infrastructure, the loss of natural sunlight and the risk of structural damage to neighbouring properties.

The Environment and Land Court dismissed the petition, finding that the developer had substantially complied with the law and that no violation of environmental rights had been demonstrated. The residents appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The court clarified that the operative zoning regulations remain the 2004 Nairobi City Development Ordinances and Zoning Regulations, made under the old Physical Planning Act but preserved under the Physical and Land Use Planning Act. The court further held that the Nairobi Integrated Urban Development Master Plan of 2016 is merely a strategic guide and cannot be used to establish parcel-specific zoning rules. Critically, the court found that the Nairobi City County Development Control Policy 2031, which is widely consulted and relied upon in practice by developers and county officials alike, has no binding force in law until it is formally adopted by the County Assembly. In other words, a developer who designs a project in reliance on the 2031 policy alone, without verifying the position under the 2004 Ordinances, is building on uncertain legal ground.

At the Supreme Court, the residents sought conservatory orders to halt construction pending the hearing of their appeal. They also sought leave to introduce additional evidence regarding the status of the 2021 Nairobi City Development Policy. The Supreme Court, in its ruling of 31^st March 2026, declined to grant the conservatory orders and dismissed the application. However, the court confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the substantive appeal on the basis that the matter raises genuine constitutional questions concerning the interpretation and application of Articles 10, 42, and 69 of the Constitution. The appeal therefore remains live, and the outcome will have significant implications for how zoning and environmental rights disputes are resolved in Nairobi and beyond.

The Mbaazi dispute illustrates that the risks in a development project do not end with the grant of regulatory approvals. Zoning due diligence must go beyond a confirmation that the county has approved the development. It requires reviewing the applicable zoning classification under the 2004 Ordinances and confirming that the proposed height and density comply, while identifying which planning documents carry legal weight.

Public participation, similarly, must be approached as a substantive obligation rather than a procedural formality. The courts have been clear that it is a living constitutional principle. Residents and affected communities must be given a genuine opportunity to be heard, their views must be considered in good faith and where those views are not adopted, reasons should be capable of being provided. A developer who attends to these obligations early is far better placed to see a project through to completion. The courts have at every stage of this dispute, found in favour of the developer. That outcome was not accidental. It was the product of a process that, however imperfect, was built on the right legal groundwork. That is the standard worth aiming for.