Green Belt Movement v Honourable Attorney General & 9 others; Law Society of Kenya & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Petition E042 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5945 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court cancelled a restaurant licence in Karura Forest but allowed the Kiambu Road dualling project to proceed on a much smaller forest footprint.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there was compliance with the statutory and constitutional requirements on development control and EIA licensing in respect of the Kiambu Road dualling project
- 2.Whether the Special Use Licence granted to the 6th respondent for a recreational facility in Karura Forest was lawful
- 3.Whether the claim against the 7th respondent over the proposed ablution block was premature
- 4.Whether the public participation undertaken in the EIA process was adequate
- 5.Whether section 58(9) of EMCA is unconstitutional
- 6.Whether the petitioner's article 35 access-to-information right was violated
Key legal issues
#Lawfulness of the Special Use Licence granted to the 6th respondent
The licence was obtained irregularly and unlawfully because a restaurant/recreational facility is not a permitted SUL purpose and stakeholders were not consulted; it was ordered revoked.
Cap 385 restricts SULs to activities yielding public benefit in transportation, communication, energy, research or education. A restaurant is not among them; a concession under section 44 was the appropriate instrument. The 6th respondent produced no evidence of stakeholder engagement before applying, and the 3rd respondent issued the licence without engaging the co-manager (4th interested party), contrary to article 10 and section 4 of Cap 385.
Adequacy of public participation in the EIA process for the road project
The 5th respondent undertook adequate public participation through gazette notice no. 13771 of December 17, 2021, newspaper advertisements and stakeholder meetings; the EIA licences were not nullified.
The burden lay on the petitioner to prove inadequacy. The adverts described project impacts in detail and stakeholder meetings were documented, including a letter from the 4th interested party showing its awareness of the EIA study. Conflicting land-size figures were resolved by the revised road design showing 0.1233ha, and the 3rd respondent's separate decision to excise forest land could not be merged with the EIA participation process.
Constitutionality of section 58(9) of EMCA
Section 58(9) was declared to expose Kenyans to the risk of environmental degradation but was not declared unconstitutional; an amendment was recommended.
The subsection permits a proponent to commence a project after three months of administrative silence, creating a dilemma for potentially harmful projects. However, the 4th respondent is not a legislative organ and cannot bear liability for the lacuna; the subsection does not exclude compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements. The court recommended amendment to prevent commencement before receipt of an EIA licence.
Claim against the 7th respondent (ablution block)
The claim was premature and struck out.
The 7th respondent deposed, uncontradicted, that no tender had been awarded and construction had not begun; the project serves public interest aims of improving sanitation and protecting the forest. The court directed the 7th respondent to share information and engage the petitioner at the feasibility study/EIA stage.
Land to be utilized by the 5th respondent in Karura Forest
The 5th respondent is confined to 0.1233 Ha within its wayleave, not the 51.64 acres granted by the 3rd respondent, and must acquire it under the Land Act.
The 3rd respondent's letter of August 21, 2024 granting 51.64 acres was incomplete as it merely invited KeNHA to engage KFS for a special use licence, and no executed SUL agreement was produced. Since no SUL had issued to the 5th respondent, it was premature to declare a non-existent licence null; instead a compliance order was issued.
Legal principles established
#- A Special Use Licence under the Forest Conservation and Management Act may only be issued for activities whose primary purpose is to yield public benefit in transportation, communication, energy, research or education; a commercial recreational facility/restaurant falls outside this scope and should be dealt with as a concession.
- An agency issuing a Special Use Licence over a forest under a joint management agreement is bound by article 10 of the Constitution and must engage key stakeholders before issuing the licence.
- Adequate public participation in an EIA process, through gazette and newspaper advertisements and stakeholder meetings, cannot be invalidated by subsequent inconsistencies in the size of land to be excised where the design and statutory processes remain intact.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that section 58(9) of the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act exposes Kenyans to the risk of environmental degradation for allowing that a project may commence after three months even when a licence has not been issued by the 4th respondent, but it is not declared unconstitutional since it does not take away any rights of the citizens
- 2.An order directing that the 5th respondent shall only utilize, beside its wayleave, the 0.1233 Ha of the Karura forest land (to be acquired as per the Land Act) and not the 51.64 acres granted to it by the 3rd respondent vide a Special Use Licence dated August 21, 2024
- 3.A declaration that the granting of a special-use licence to the 6th respondent for the establishment of a recreational facility at Karura Forest Reserve fails the test of a special-use licence and the agreement entered offends article 42 and article 69 of the Constitution
- 4.An order of mandamus compelling the 3rd respondent to immediately cancel the special-use licence granted to the 6th respondent as the same falls beyond the scope of a special-use licence as provided for under the law
- 5.Each party to bear their respective costs of the petition
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 42, 69 and 70 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (environmental rights enforcement under EMCA and article 70 petitions)
Relief refused
#Declaration that the tender award for the Kiambu Dual Carriage Way without an EIA licence was unconstitutional and certiorari to quash the tender/agreement (prayers (a) and (b))
The EIA study was procedurally undertaken by the 5th respondent and the EIA licence was issued on November 26, 2024; the court found no merit in cancelling the project
Declaration that section 58(8) and (9) of EMCA are unconstitutional
The subsection was found not unconstitutional as it does not exclude a project proponent from complying with constitutional and statutory requirements, though it was flagged as exposing Kenyans to risk
Declaration of contravention of article 35 access-to-information rights (prayer (g))
The alleged breach was cured by the 3rd respondent before the suit commenced, and an alternative review mechanism exists under section 14 of the Access to Information Act
Claim against the 7th respondent (ablution block) struck out
The project had not commenced and no tender had been awarded; the claim was premature
Nullification of the EIA licences issued to the 5th respondent
Public participation was adequate and inconsistencies in the land size did not materially alter the participation process
Costs
Each party to bear their respective costs of the petition.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In concluding, I find the petition is partially successful and I grant the following reliefs:
An order of mandamus be and is hereby issued compelling the 3rd respondent to immediately cancel the special-use license granted to the 6th respondent as the same falls beyond the scope of a special-use license as provided for under the law.
An order is hereby issued directing that the 5th respondent shall only utilize beside its wayleave, the 0.1233 Ha. of the Karura forest land (to be acquired as per the Land Act) and not the 51.64 acres granted to it by the 3rd respondent vide a Special Use License dated August 21, 2024
Each party to bear their respective costs of the petition.
Therefore, I am persuaded to hold that the license as currently granted was obtained irregularly and unlawfully. Consequently, the same is to be revoked.
A declaration is hereby given that the granting of special-use license to the 6th respondent for the establishment of a recreational facility at Karura Forest Reserve fails the test of a special-use license and the agreement entered ofiends article 42 and article 69 of the Constitution.
The subsection is not unconstitutional to the extent that it does not excluse a project proponent from complying with all the Constitutional and Statutory requirements.
Issues in the judgment
#Numbering of the judgment is internally inconsistent - paragraphs 109, 115 and 136 are interleaved with 110-114 (including a stray '115' inside paragraph 109), suggesting typographical/formatting errors
The 5th respondent's replying affidavit states the consultancy design period as 'October 22, 2028-April 21, 2020', an apparently erroneous date
The judgment inconsistently identifies the size of forest land to be excised when summarizing parties' positions (5.4 acres, 49.6 acres, 0.304 acres vs 0.1233ha) though this mirrors the parties' own conflicting figures
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Green Belt Movement v Honourable Attorney General & 9 others; Law Society of Kenya & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Petition E042 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5945 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated December 10, 2024 (amended December 11, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5945/eng@2025-08-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.