Wamunyinyi v Ministry of Lands, Public Works, Housing & Urban Development & 2 others (Environment & Land Petition E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3364 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court halted the Kanduyi Smart City tender because the government tried to convert a public airstrip without public notice or participation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prima facie case and real danger for conservatory orders
The Applicant established a prima facie case: the suit land is uncontroverted public land set aside as an airstrip, with no evidence of change of user, published notice or public participation by the Respondents.
The Petitioner's sworn averment that the 36.95-acre plot is currently used as an airstrip was not controverted by any Respondent. The burden lay on the Respondents to demonstrate compliance with the law on publication of notice of change of user; no newspaper advertisements or evidence of public participation were availed. The court therefore concluded there was no change of user and that development was proposed without adherence to constitutional and statutory provisions.
Whether irreparable harm must be proved in environmental enforcement petitions
Irreparable harm need not be proved; the threatened violation of the right to a clean and healthy environment is sufficient harm.
Relying on Article 70(3) of the Constitution, the court held that a petitioner seeking conservatory orders for enforcement of environmental rights is not required to demonstrate irreparable loss before the orders are granted. The Petitioner's demonstration that his right to a clean and healthy environment was likely to be violated was, by itself, sufficient harm.
Legal principles established
#- Where public land has been set aside for a particular use, the Government has no authority to change the user without published notice of the application for change of user and public participation
- An applicant enforcing the right to a clean and healthy environment need not prove irreparable harm
- Under Article 70(3) an environmental applicant need not demonstrate loss or injury
Court orders
#- 1.A conservatory order of injunction restraining the 1st Respondent, its officers and/or agents from proceeding with the tender process including evaluation and awarding of Tender Number MLPWHUD/SDHUD/AHP/070/2024-2025 pending hearing and determination of the Petition
- 2.A prohibitory order of injunction restraining the Respondents, their officers and/or agents from converting land parcel No. Bungoma Township/345 (approx. 36.95 acres) from its current use as an Airstrip to any other use including the proposed Kanduyi Smart City pending hearing and determination of the Petition
- 3.Costs of the application to be costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 70 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 (enforcement of environmental rights) read with EMCA
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wamunyinyi v Ministry of Lands, Public Works, Housing & Urban Development & 2 others (Environment & Land Petition E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3364 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 2nd December 2024 (Notice of Motion dated 2/12/2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3364/eng@2025-04-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.