In a decisive ruling that underscores the authority of judicial orders, the Environment and Land Court in Nairobi has found a senior Nairobi City County official Geoffrey Mosira guilty of contempt of court for unlawfully approving construction-related activities in the Parklands area, in direct violation of a court order.
The ruling, delivered on October 14, 2025, by a three-judge bench comprising Principal Judge O.A. Angote, Justice A. Omollo, and Justice C.G. Mbogo, stemmed from a case filed by the Parklands Residents Association. The residents, led by Kamalkumar R. Sanghani, had sought to punish several parties for ignoring a court order intended to halt unauthorized development in their neighborhood.
The Heart of the Dispute
The conflict began in March 2025 when the residents obtained a conservatory order from the court. This order explicitly prohibited the Nairobi City County Government and its planning committees from “considering and or processing any application for development permission” in the Parklands area. The freeze was to remain in effect pending the hearing of a larger case concerning the lack of a proper Physical and Land Use Development Plan for the area.
Despite this injunction, the residents observed and documented ongoing tree felling and excavation work on a property known as L.R. No. 1870/1/320 along Jalaram Road. Their investigations pointed to a company, Grandpine Company Limited, as the developer behind the work. This prompted them to return to court, accusing both the county officials and the developers of contempt for willfully disregarding the court’s directive.
The Court’s Two-Pronged Analysis;
The court’s ruling hinged on two central questions:
1. Were the developers bound by the order?
2. Did the county officials breach the order?
In a clear and reasoned decision, the court drew a sharp distinction between the responsibilities of the government and those of private citizens.
Developers Cleared: Order Was Not Directed at Them
The court absolved Grandpine Company Limited and its directors of contempt charges. The judges emphasized that the original court order was specifically addressed to the 1st to 6th Respondents—the Nairobi City County Government and its employees. It restrained them from processing applications, but it did not place any direct legal obligation on private developers or landowners.
“The alleged contemnors from the 6th to the 9th were not parties to the proceedings at the time the order was made,” the court stated. “Consequently, there would be no basis to condemn them for any acts of disobedience.”
County Official Found Guilty: Permits Constitute “Development”
The case against the county officials, however, told a different story. The county had argued that the “Tree Cutting Certificate” and “Authority to Excavate and Transport Soil” it issued after the court order were merely “preparatory works” or compliance with conditions of an older permit, and thus did not qualify as “development permission.”
The court firmly rejected this argument. Relying on the Physical and Land Use Planning Act (PLUPA) 2019, which defines development as “carrying out any works on land,” the judges ruled that “tree cutting and excavation amounts to development since they are works on land, and are likely to cause material change.”
The court found that Geoffrey Mosiria, the County Chief Officer for Environment, had personally signed two “Authority to Excavate” permits dated March 17 and May 14, 2025, after the court’s order was in place. This, the court ruled, was a deliberate and unlawful act.
“Despite full knowledge of the conservatory order… the 4th alleged contemnor went ahead to issue the… authority to excavate,” the ruling noted. “We hold that the action of the 4th alleged contemnor was in breach of the order of this court.”
The cases against the other four county officials were dismissed due to a lack of evidence directly linking them to the signing of the contested permits.
Expected Outcomes
The court concluded that the contempt application partially succeeded only against Geoffrey Mosiria. He has been found guilty and is required to avail himself before the court on a date to be set for mitigation and sentencing, where he could face a fine or committal to civil jail.
More HERE
Leave a Reply