All posts by : Jilian Nekoye

A case filed by the Rhapta Road Residents Association brought Nairobi’s complex zoning regime under judicial scrutiny. The Association had challenged the County Government’s approvals for several high-rise developments along Rhapta Road, questioning which planning instruments lawfully governed zoning and development control in the city.

The litigation provided a rare opportunity for Kenya’s superior courts to clarify a long-standing tension in Nairobi’s urban planning framework; between outdated pre-2010 zoning guidelines, newer but un-gazetted draft policies, and city-wide master plans that provide direction but lack granular enforceability.

The Legal Landscape

Three instruments came under review:

1. The 2004 Nairobi City Development Ordinances and Zones – These were pre-2010 zoning guidelines issued under the former local government system.
2. The Nairobi Integrated Urban Development Master Plan, 2016 (NIUPLAN 2016) – A County Assembly-approved master plan providing the city’s broad spatial and strategic direction.
3. The Draft Nairobi City Development Control Policy, 2021 – A technical policy framework developed and adopted administratively by the County Executive but yet to be formally gazetted by the County Assembly.

The Court’s Position

Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal reached a consistent conclusion:

• The 2004 Zoning Guidelines have no legal force under the current constitutional and statutory framework, as they were never adopted by the County Assembly and thus fail to meet the requirements of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, 2019 (PLUPA).
• NIUPLAN 2016 remains valid but functions as a high-level policy instrument. It provides spatial and strategic guidance rather than parcel-specific zoning rules. In the Court’s words, it acts as a “compass,” not a regulatory map.
• The Draft 2021 Development Control Policy, although un-gazetted, is recognized as the operative administrative guide, an interim framework that the County may rely upon to maintain consistency and predictability in approvals, provided it is applied transparently and within the procedural safeguards of PLUPA.

This hierarchy ensures that development control continues in Nairobi without paralysis, while reinforcing the need for County Assembly adoption and gazettement of new, legally robust zoning instruments.

The Court underscored that while Kenya’s planning law does not tolerate a regulatory vacuum, binding zoning authority must ultimately emanate from a plan or policy duly adopted and gazetted by the County Assembly.

Key Takeaways for Investors and Developers

1. Use NIUPLAN 2016 to understand long-term planning logic, density clusters, transport corridors, and mixed-use growth zones.
2. Refer to the Draft 2021 Development Control Policy for parcel-specific guidance on allowable use, plot ratios and building heights, recognizing that it remains subject to formal adoption.
3. Monitor regulatory updates closely. The Court has directed Nairobi City County to complete and gazette its new zoning and development control plans, a process likely to reshape property valuation, design approvals, and investment strategy across the city.
4. Engage proactively with professional planning and legal teams to ensure compliance under the evolving framework and to mitigate approval delays or exposure to administrative appeals.

A Broader Perspective

Beyond Nairobi, this case underscores a larger theme in Kenya’s devolved governance system, the transition from legacy planning instruments to County Assembly-enacted frameworks that meet constitutional standards. As counties urbanize and land values soar, zoning clarity will be central to attracting credible investment, ensuring predictable returns and managing community interests.

The courts have now drawn the line: interim policies can guide, but only gazetted instruments can bind. For investors, that’s both a reassurance of order and a reminder that regulatory vigilance remains a vital part of doing business in Kenya’s fast-evolving urban markets.

This article is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are advised to seek specific legal counsel before acting on any information contained herein.

Kenya has officially entered a new era in digital finance with the enactment of the Virtual Assets Service Providers (VASP) Act, 2025. The law ushers virtual assets out of the shadows of regulatory uncertainty into a structured, formal regime signaling that the age of unregulated innovation in this space is over.

The Act establishes a comprehensive licensing framework for entities offering virtual asset services in or from Kenya. It defines these services broadly, encompassing issuance, exchange, custody, tokenization and conversion and subjects them to stringent obligations on anti–money laundering, counter–terrorism financing, governance, cybersecurity and audit. Breaches attract serious penalties, including license revocation and potential criminal liability.

At its core, the Act legitimizes the digital asset ecosystem. It integrates virtual assets into Kenya’s regulated financial system, unlocking new opportunities for collaboration with banks, institutional investors and payment providers that previously hesitated due to regulatory opacity. Compliance now becomes more than a legal requirement, it becomes a trust currency for credible operators.

That said, the transition will not be simple. The law grants discretion to regulators, notably the Central Bank of Kenya and the Capital Markets Authority, whose overlapping mandates could either foster cooperation or create jurisdictional friction.

For businesses and investors, the message is clear, this is not the time to observe, it is the time to act;

• Assess your operations against the new definitions to determine whether licensing is required.
• Re-examine your corporate structure to ensure compliance with local presence and control requirements.
• Engage regulators early to clarify expectations and classifications.
• Build robust compliance frameworks covering AML/CFT, governance and cybersecurity.
• Redraft contracts to reflect new compliance covenants, audit rights and termination triggers.

This law will reshape how virtual assets are issued, traded and governed. Those who adapt early through treating compliance as strategic infrastructure rather than a regulatory burden will capture first-mover advantage, institutional and investor trust.

At JMK Partners Advocates LLp, we view the VASP Act as more than a legal milestone, it is a structural shift in how digital finance will be built, governed and scaled in Kenya. We help clients navigate this new terrain by translating regulatory obligations into operational strategies that protect value and enable growth.

Incase of inquiries, reach out to us via info@jmkadvocates.co.ke.

In today’s workplace, exits are inevitable. But how an employer and employee part ways often determines whether the goodbye will end with a claim before the Employment and Labour Relations Court.

This is where Mutual Separation Agreements (MSA) prove their worth. Unlike unilateral terminations, MSAs provide a structured and legally binding framework to end the employment relationship by mutual consent. Properly crafted, they cover essentials including severance pay, notice periods, confidentiality, post-employment obligations and a waiver of future claims.

When done right, the benefits are clear: employers avoid protracted disputes, employees leave with certainty and dignity and both sides preserve professional reputations. The flexibility of MSAs also allows them to be tailored to the unique circumstances of each exit, that is, whether it is a senior executive’s departure or company-wide restructuring.

However, Kenyan courts are keen to strike down agreements that are more coercion than consent. Employers must therefore ensure:

• The employee signed the MSA voluntarily with no undue pressure or rushed timelines.
• That they complied with all labour laws especially statutory entitlements like notice, leave and pension.
• There is clarity in drafting because vague or incomplete terms often create more disputes than they resolve.

Employees, on the other hand, should resist the urge to quickly sign and move on  without understanding the repercussions. Reviewing the document, ideally with a lawyer, ensures that rights are not inadvertently signed away.

Ultimately, a mutual separation should be viewed not as a shortcut, but as a professional exit tool, one that balances legal enforceability with fairness and humanity. When handled with care, it allows both employer and employee to close one chapter and move on to the next without leaving a trail of otherwise avoidable litigation.

In case of any inquiries, reach out to us via info@jmkadvocates.co.ke.