Githanga & another v County Government of Nakuru & 4 others (Environment and Land Petition E013 & E008 of 2024 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 585 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court in Nakuru dismissed petitions challenging the rehabilitation of Lions Gardens Park, finding public participation was adequate and the park remains public land.
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 adequate public participation conducted prior to the rehabilitation of the park
- 2.Whether the Respondents have violated the Petitioners' rights under Articles 69 and 70 of the Constitution and statutory environmental and planning obligations
- 3.Whether the Petitioners are entitled to the disclosure of documents held by the Respondents
- 4.Whether the construction of commercial stalls within Lions Gardens Park was illegal and contrary to public purpose
- 5.Whether the Petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought in the Petitions
- 6.Who bears the costs of the Petitions?
Key legal issues
#Adequacy of public participation prior to rehabilitation of Lions Garden Park
Public participation was adequate; notice, agenda, venue and attendance were proved and stakeholder views were factored into the process
Relying on the Supreme Court's principles in British American Tobacco Kenya and the Mui Coal Basin criteria, the court examined the invitation letter of 9th August 2023, the meeting of 14th August 2023, the closure notice, the meeting of 11th April 2024 and the community proposal of 22nd April 2024. It found the process elaborate, open and transparent, with stakeholders contributing views and a proposal, satisfying the effectiveness test.
Whether construction of commercial stalls changed the user of the park and violated Articles 42, 69 and 70
No change of user was proved; the park remains public and the project improved its environmental character, so no violation was established
The court noted the park had always hosted photographers, nail artists, traders and shoe shiners; erecting decent stalls for 54 such operators did not convert public land to private use. The rehabilitation increased urban greenery as a carbon sink and took account of environmental conservation and climate change imperatives, fulfilling the County's mandate under Schedule IV rather than breaching Articles 69 and 70.
Entitlement to disclosure of documents under Article 35
Claim untenable because the Petitioners never made a formal request that was denied
Citing Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance, Famy Care and Kenya Society for the Mentally Handicapped, the court held that enforcement of Article 35 arises only after a request is made and denied, per the Access to Information Act procedures in Sections 8 and 9(6). The information about the project was public, and the Petitioners did not demonstrate they had requested and been denied access.
Legal principles established
#- Public participation is a national value under Article 10(2) binding all state organs, and the entity performing a duty bears the onus of facilitating it; it must be real, purposive and meaningful
- A formal request under the Access to Information Act is a precondition to enforcing the right of access to information under Article 35
Court orders
#- 1.The two Petitions (ELC Petition No. E008 of 2024 and ELC Petition No. E013 of 2024) are dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs, as these were public interest cases
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (petitions alleging violations of Articles 42, 69 and 70 concerning land and environment)
- Consolidated with
- ELC Petition No. E013 of 2024
Relief refused
#Declarations that the Respondents contravened Article 10 and violated Articles 42, 62(4), 69 and 70 of the Constitution
No change of user was proved; the park remains public land and public participation was adequate
Orders of certiorari, prohibition/injunction and mandamus, and a mandatory order to demolish stalls
Petitioners not entitled to the reliefs sought
Mandamus compelling disclosure of information on the approval process
Information was publicly accessible and no formal request under the Access to Information Act had been made and denied
Costs
Petitions dismissed with no orders as to costs as these were public interest cases
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.
Consequently, I find that there was adequate public participation for the rehabilitation of the Park.
There was no evidence of change of user of the parcel of land as it still remains a park for use by the public.
Therefore, a formal request for access to information is a necessary precondition to establishing that access was denied, and failure to prove this renders the claim untenable.
the court finds that the Petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought, therefore, the Petitions are dismissed with no orders as to costs as these were public interest cases.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment cites Access to Information Act sections as 6(5), 8 and 9(6) but in paragraph 43 counsel's submission attributes the 21-day deemed rejection to section 9(6), while paragraph 43 earlier refers to procedures under Section 8; no internal contradiction in holdings noted, but the petitioner's name in ELC Petition No. E008 of 2024 is never stated in the judgment (only the Secretary General George Narok is named)
Cases cited by the court appear in the analysis section but most authorities were cited by counsel; the quotation from Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance is attributed to that case by the court without independent verification in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Githanga & another v County Government of Nakuru & 4 others (Environment and Land Petition E013 & E008 of 2024 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 585 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Petition No. E008 of 2024 (consolidated with ELC Petition No. E013 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/585/eng@2026-02-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.