Court Orders Nairobi to Finalise Updated Zoning Regulations

The Court of Appeal has ordered Nairobi County to develop and formally adopt a comprehensive zoning and development control framework within six months.

In a decision delivered by Justices Daniel Musinga, Joel Ngugi and George Odunga, the court found that Nairobi’s continued use of the 2004 Zoning Guidelines is legally invalid. The judges ruled that the guidelines, which were issued under the now-repealed Physical Planning Act, do not comply with Kenya’s 2010 Constitution or the Physical and Land Use Planning Act (PLUPA) of 2019. 

Under PLUPA, zoning plans must be approved through county legislation, giving county assemblies the legal mandate to determine land use policies. The court recognised the Nairobi Integrated Urban Development Master Plan (NIUPLAN), adopted in 2016, as a legitimate planning document. 

However, it clarified that NIUPLAN does not carry legal force unless formally approved and gazetted. As such, it cannot serve as binding law, although it may be considered as guidance in planning decisions. This clarification was central to a case brought by the Rhapta Road Residents Association, which challenged construction approvals for several high-rise buildings in their neighbourhood. 

The residents argued that some of the developments, reaching up to 28 storeys, were approved in breach of existing planning regulations, including the 2004 guidelines that limited buildings in Zone 4 to four storeys. They raised concerns about unplanned densification, strained infrastructure, and the erosion of the area’s residential character.

In response, the developers stated that the 2004 guidelines were outdated and no longer applicable. They said the county had been applying the 2021 Development Control Policy, which reflects Nairobi’s current population demands and supports higher-density development. 

According to the developers, the approvals were granted lawfully following technical reviews, public participation, and environmental assessments overseen by the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA). The court did not revoke the contested approvals but ruled that future development must be based on legally approved, transparent, and constitutionally compliant planning instruments. 

The judges cautioned that uncontrolled high-density development could burden essential infrastructure, narrow roads, and public spaces, creating long-term urban planning challenges.