Mombasa industrialist Mital Ashok Shah has secured a court order stopping an 18-storey development. The judge questioned approvals, ownership consent, and whether residents received the participation required by planning law.
A major Mombasa high-rise project has hit a legal wall after the Environment and Land Court halted construction.
Justice James Otieno Olola stopped Hi Marhaba Apartments Limited from continuing construction on three disputed parcels.
The proposed project comprises 18-storey apartments, offices, and other amenities across the properties.
The parcels are identified as Mombasa/Block XXVI/677, 692, and 829.
The order followed an application by Shah, who challenged the legality of construction.
Shah complained that works began without proper approvals and statutory public participation.
The judge ultimately found merit in his application and ordered construction stopped.
The ruling was delivered on September 24, 2026, at the Mombasa Environment and Land Court.
Shah is a businessman associated with Mombasa’s food manufacturing and commodity trading sector.
Construction Dispute
The dispute began after Shah noticed demolition and excavation works at Plot 677.
That property was then registered in the name of Rajul Rameshchandra Malde.
On February 5, 2026, Shah wrote to the County Government questioning the development.
He specifically wanted to know whether the developer possessed the necessary development permission.
The county responded on March 4, saying the developer had obtained development permission.
It nevertheless promised continued enforcement to ensure compliance with required standards.
Shah later noticed construction extending onto Plots 692 and 829.
He wrote another letter to the county on May 7 seeking further clarification.
The ruling says that letter did not receive a response before the proceedings advanced.
Meanwhile, Hi Marhaba defended the project and denied any unlawful conduct.
The company said it acquired the three properties through an agreement dated August 4, 2025.
It said ownership transfers were completed on March 11, 2026.
Hi Marhaba, consequently, maintained that it was the lawful owner of the properties.
The company also insisted that it had obtained the necessary government approvals.
Approval Questions
The court’s examination of the timeline became particularly important to the dispute.
Hi Marhaba, it applied for change of user and consolidation on February 17, 2026.
The application sought conversion from single-dwelling to residential multiple-dwelling use.
The county subsequently approved the application subject to several conditions.
One condition barred construction until an EIA report received NEMA approval.
It also required registration of the project with the National Construction Authority.
Hi Marhaba later obtained its NEMA licence on April 24, 2026.
The National Construction Authority subsequently issued a compliance certificate dated April 27, 2026.
But the judge noted that construction on Plot 677 allegedly began during February.
That meant works reportedly started before several approvals relied upon by the developer existed.
The judge also noticed another problem involving ownership during the approval process.
When applications were made, Hi Marhaba had not yet become the registered owner.
It became the registered proprietor of the three properties only on March 11.
Justice Olola therefore examined Section 58(4) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act.
That provision requires written consent where an applicant does not own the affected property.
Yet neither respondent produced such consent before the court.
The judge consequently found uncertainty over whether that requirement had been satisfied.
The ruling also noted that the NEMA licence covered Plots 829 and 692.
It did not specifically refer to Plot 677, where construction had reportedly started.
Participation Dispute
The most consequential issue concerned public participation under planning legislation.
Hi Marhaba and the County insisted that members of the public had been consulted.
They pointed to a Taifa Leo advertisement inviting objections to the proposed development.
They also cited stakeholder consultations and public participation meetings with neighbours.
Justice Olola, however, distinguished environmental participation from planning-law participation.
He found no evidence demonstrating public participation under the Physical and Land Use Planning Act.
The distinction mattered because the two processes serve different statutory purposes.
The judge said environmental participation for an EIA licence was a separate process.
Planning legislation independently requires public notification before development permission is granted.
Section 58 requires proposed developments to invite objections from members of the public.
The County must then consider those objections before determining the development application.
The judge therefore rejected the suggestion that NEMA participation automatically satisfied planning requirements.
He said the respondents had not demonstrated compliance with those mandatory provisions before construction began.
That finding became the central pillar supporting the injunction.
High-Rise Concerns
The proposed project’s sheer scale also drew attention from the court.
A NEMA letter described the surrounding neighbourhood as predominantly low-density residential.
The area nevertheless contained medium multi-storey buildings reaching between 10 and 14 floors.
The proposed development would rise approximately 63 metres above ground level.
NEMA warned that the structures could create significant visual prominence and alter the skyline.
The court considered those concerns alongside planning requirements governing building height and neighbourhood character.
The Physical and Land Use Planning Act requires counties to consider several aspects.
Those include building height, density, plot coverage, parking, and infrastructure adequacy.
The law also identifies public participation as an objective of development control.
Justice Olola therefore found the unresolved procedural questions sufficiently serious to stop construction.
He invoked the precautionary principle and ordered the works halted until compliance was demonstrated.
The judge declared that he was “not persuaded” that mandatory planning requirements had been satisfied.
He consequently allowed Shah’s May 11 application and granted the requested injunction.
Costs of the application will abide the outcome of the main petition.
The ruling does not finally determine whether the entire development is unlawful.
Instead, it places construction on hold while the substantive petition proceeds.
For the developer, the immediate consequence is a halt to construction across the disputed properties.
For Mombasa County, the decision raises searching questions about its approval processes.
And for Shah, the ruling provides an important procedural victory in the ongoing dispute.
The larger battle over the development’s legality, however, remains before the court.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
