Sacco & 4 others v Kenya Railways Corporation & another; Karen Lang’ata District Association & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Petition E003 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 897 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court refused to halt the Ngong–Riruta railway project because the matatu SACCOs could not prove they legally own or occupy the land.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a prima facie case was established
No prima facie case was established; the Petitioners produced no documentary evidence of any enforceable legal interest in the road reserve, while the Respondent showed a statutory public project with approvals and subsisting conservatory orders in related litigation.
Applying the Mrao test, a prima facie case requires rights which, if unrebutted, warrant relief. The Petitioners alleged threatened eviction and lack of consultation but exhibited no lease, licence, grant or allotment letter over the road reserve. Their occupation was contested. Conversely, the Respondent demonstrated an ESIA-approved statutory project and conservatory orders in a court of equal jurisdiction over the same project. The claim thus rested on speculation rather than demonstrated enforceable rights.
Whether irreparable harm was demonstrated
The second Giella limb failed; loss of livelihood was asserted but not shown to be incapable of compensation by damages.
The Petitioners' affidavits asserted loss of livelihood and disruption of operations, but no evidence was placed before the Court showing that such loss, if established, could not be quantified or compensated by an award of damages. The material did not demonstrate permanent, irreversible or unquantifiable harm. The Court expressly noted its findings were without prejudice to the substantive issues at the hearing of the Petition.
Balance of convenience
The balance of convenience favoured continuation of the railway project, not the grant of interim relief.
The orders sought would halt an ongoing public infrastructure project undertaken pursuant to statutory authority, with the Respondent showing progress reports, extent of public funds expended and 40.5% completion. In the absence of a demonstrated violation of a legally protected right at the interlocutory stage, interruption of the lawful project would prejudice the public interest more than refusal would prejudice the Petitioners.
Legal principles established
#- Conservatory or injunctive relief halting an ongoing public infrastructure project requires clear, cogent and compelling evidence of constitutional or legal violation.
- An applicant for interim relief over public land must exhibit documentary evidence of an enforceable legal or proprietary interest.
Court orders
#- 1.The Petitioners' Notice of Motion dated 26th January 2026 is dismissed for lack of merit
- 2.The costs of the Application shall be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 13(3) and (4) and 19(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act; Articles 42, 69 and 70 of the Constitution; sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sacco & 4 others v Kenya Railways Corporation & another; Karen Lang’ata District Association & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Petition E003 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 897 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 26th January 2026 (Petition at Milimani ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/897/eng@2026-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.