Sikalieh (Being Chairman of and Suing in Public Interest and on behalf of the Members of Karen Langata District Assoc) v Kenya Railways Corporation & 5 others; National Environment Management Authority & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Planning Petition E028 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4927 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed the Ngong-Riruta railway project to proceed, but warned developers they broke the law by starting construction before getting their EIA licence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether adequate public participation was conducted
Public participation was adequate; the EIA licence could not be declared void for want of participation
The court applied the Mui Coal Basin effectiveness test. Evidence showed stakeholder meetings from November 2023 through April 2024, a letter to the Petitioner in October 2023 flagging the ESIA process, attendance lists with contacts, and diverse participants. The Petitioner, who attended meetings and proposed an alternative route, failed to discharge the burden of disproving the meetings by contacting listed attendees.
Whether the project unlawfully commenced before the EIA licence
Yes - the Respondents commenced works before the licence issued on 19th September 2024, breaching Section 58 EMCA, but the works were not nullified
Photographs showed machinery levelling ground and an incomplete building before 19th September 2024, contradicting the 1st Respondent's denial. The court faulted the Respondents for breaking ground prematurely but declined to nullify works because procedural requirements had commenced and the project serves the public good with mitigation measures in the EIA report.
Whether the right to a clean and healthy environment was infringed
No - the Petitioner failed to prove harm or threatened harm
The ESIA report contained mitigation measures (C-ESMP, EIA for material sites, limited vegetation clearance, tree replacement) addressing the concerns raised. The Petitioner only criticised participation and did not explain why the mitigation measures were insufficient. The court balanced environmental rights against the public interest in easing transport congestion.
Whether the court had jurisdiction notwithstanding the exhaustion doctrine
The court had jurisdiction because no NET-appealable decision existed when the petition was filed
As at July 2024, NEMA had not issued the EIA licence, so there was no decision to appeal to the National Environment Tribunal. The Petitioner could not be required to exhaust a remedy against a licence issued after their proceedings were filed.
Legal principles established
#- A project shall not commence until an EIA licence is issued under Section 58 of EMCA
- Commencement of a project before an EIA licence is a breach attracting judicial censure, even where subsequent licensing regularises the process
- Public participation is assessed by an effectiveness test, not a litmus test
- Environmental harms during project implementation may be addressed through monitoring and improvement/restoration orders, preserving the petitioner's right to return to court
Court orders
#- 1.Petition dismissed
- 2.No costs awarded due to the evident public nature of the case
- 3.Petitioner at liberty to move the court during construction if the Respondents fail to adhere to mitigation measures
- 4.Mandamus prayer (review of transport policy and public funds allocation) not dealt with for want of jurisdiction; Petitioner at liberty to pursue it in a court with jurisdiction
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution / Environment and Land Court Act - jurisdiction over environmental claims; court confirmed jurisdiction despite exhaustion objection
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sikalieh (Being Chairman of and Suing in Public Interest and on behalf of the Members of Karen Langata District Assoc) v Kenya Railways Corporation & 5 others; National Environment Management Authority & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Planning Petition E028 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4927 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 24th July 2024 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4927/eng@2025-07-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.