William Mungai & 22 Others v Kenya Railways Corporation
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered Kenya Railways to pay residents for homes damaged by SGR blasting, but refused environmental restoration orders because only NEMA can grant those.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction over EIA Licence declarations and environmental restoration orders
The ELC has no original jurisdiction; prayers (a) and (b) cannot be granted
Section 130 of EMCA gives the court only appellate jurisdiction from the National Environment Tribunal, while NEMA has primary supervisory mandate. Following Mutanga Tea, the prescribed procedure must be strictly followed. The claim on the EIA Licence was therefore outside the court's jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction over the residual land-based claims
The court has jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13(7)(c) of the ELC Act
The dispute relates to the use and occupation of land, and the court has power to award damages. The Plaintiffs' claim arising from their occupation of their land falls squarely within the ELC's jurisdiction even though the EIA Licence claim does not.
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio defence
The doctrine does not apply
The Plaintiffs were not found to have committed any illegal act; lack of approved plans does not render buildings illegal. The Defendant's own witness confirmed the houses were structurally sound and none was condemned. The doctrine would apply only if the Plaintiffs were trespassers on the Defendant's land.
Causation of structural damage
The Defendant's blasting activities caused the damage
The Defendant admitted settling claims of six Plaintiffs as project-affected persons and admitted relocating, compensating and restoring affected persons. It would be implausible for all houses in one estate to suffer similar damage only after the blasting. Causation was therefore established on the pleadings and evidence.
Quantum of repair costs
Both parties' expert reports rejected; the umpire's report adopted
The Plaintiffs claimed more than restoration by including structural steel not originally present, while the Defendant's offer was too meagre. Both experts lost objectivity. The independent umpire's report, backed by a locus visit, provided a fair middle ground and was adopted.
Special damages for environmental, social and economic loss
Not proved
Particulars of noise and dust pollution for each Plaintiff were not pleaded as required by Order 2 rule 10; only one Plaintiff testified, without farm records; no medical evidence proved any impairment. The Kshs 96,797,964 claim failed.
Costs of experts and of the suit
Defendant to pay, costs following the event
Under the proviso to Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, costs follow the event. The Plaintiffs were successful, having recovered more than the Defendant offered, so no reason existed to deprive them of costs including the expert costs.
Legal principles established
#- The Environment and Land Court's jurisdiction under EMCA is appellate and not original; declarations on EIA licences fall to NEMA/NET in the first instance
- Where there is a clear procedure for redress prescribed by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure should be followed strictly
- A claimant is entitled to restitutio in integrum - restoration to original condition - and no more
- The court may reject both parties' conflicting expert reports and adopt an independent umpire's assessment
- Ex turpi causa non oritur actio does not apply where the plaintiff has not been found to have committed an illegal act
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the Plaintiffs against the Defendant in the amounts awarded per plaintiff (1st Kshs 1,376,400; 2nd Kshs 1,386,000; 6th Kshs 2,046,400; 7th Kshs 1,453,600; 8th Kshs 1,661,200; 10th Kshs 975,000; 11th Kshs 1,688,900; 12th Kshs 685,000; 13th Kshs 878,000; 14th Kshs 1,041,000; 16th Kshs 1,515,000; 17th Kshs 961,000; 19th Kshs 2,250,000; 21st Kshs 1,285,000; 22nd Kshs 2,369,400; 23rd Kshs 1,876,500; 24th Kshs 941,000; 25th Kshs 1,742,000; 27th Kshs 1,558,500)
- 2.The Plaintiffs will also have the costs of the suit and interest
- 3.Prayers (a) and (b) of the amended plaint (declaration of breach of EIA Licence and environmental restoration order) not granted for want of jurisdiction
- 4.Claim for environmental, social and economic damages of Kshs 96,797,964.00 (and alternative general damages) dismissed as unproved
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution; Section 13(7)(c) of the Environment and Land Court Act (Act No. 19 of 2011)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "William Mungai & 22 Others v Kenya Railways Corporation", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Suit (Kajiado; amended plaint dated 19th May 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/599/eng@2025-02-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.