Law Society of Kenya v Karura Golf Range Ltd & 7 others (Environment and Land Petition E003 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1086 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court cancelled NEMA and KFS licences that allowed a golf development in Ngong Road Forest because there was no proper public participation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether public participation preceding the EIA licence met the constitutional and statutory threshold
No - the EIA report annexures contained no evidence of public consultations, no dates for meetings or questionnaires, and the only consultation was a 2021 presentation limited to the golf range without mention of the restaurant
Regulation 17(1) and (2) of the Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 required the proponent to seek the views of affected persons and publicise the project. The court perused the annexures to the EIA report and found no evidence of public consultations, no scheduled dates or questionnaires. The only consultation evidenced was the 1st Respondent's 2021 presentation to the 2nd Interested Party, limited to the golf range and omitting the restaurant. Applying the Supreme Court's BAT components, this fell below purposive and meaningful participation, breaching Articles 10 and 42.
Whether the Special Use Licence could lawfully issue for a private commercial golf range, restaurant and mini-golf park
No - the licence under section 56 of the Forest Conservation and Management Act must yield public benefit in transportation, communication, energy, research or education, and KFS failed to justify the licence; the agreement even contemplated permanent structures
Section 2 of the Forest Act defines a Special Use Licence as authorising activities whose primary purpose yields public benefit in transportation, communication, energy, research or education. KFS justified the licence only by asserting the facility was eco-friendly and a revenue source, without explaining the need for revenue toward sustainable forest management. Clause 11(a)(iii) of the agreement contemplated keeping buildings 'in good and substantial repair', implying permanence contrary to the claim of non-permanent development. The licence was therefore ultra vires and breached Articles 1, 60(e), 62(4) and 69.
Whether suspension rather than revocation of the licences cured the violations
No - NEMA's suspension approach was approbating and reprobating; the licences should have been revoked to allow a lawful fresh process, and the uncertainty over their status entitled the Petitioner to cancellation orders
NEMA issued the licence, then suspended it upon observing the need for comprehensive compatibility and quantitative risk assessments and wider participatory ecological assessment. The court held a regulator cannot approve a licence and later suspend it for missing assessments it should have demanded before issuance. The suspension letter gave no compliance timelines, the 5th Respondent filed no pleadings clarifying whether the SUL remained suspended, and the positions of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents on tree cover conflicted. This uncertainty entitled the Petitioner to cancellation orders.
Whether the Petitioner's Article 35 right to information was violated
Yes - the allegation that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents ignored the Petitioner's information requests was not contradicted in any replying affidavit
The Petitioner pleaded that its requests under Article 35 for the EIA Report and the special use licence were ignored by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents. In judgment, the court noted that neither Respondent responded to or contradicted this allegation in their replying affidavits, so the violation stood unchallenged on the evidence.
Legal principles established
#- A project proponent must undertake an environmental impact assessment study and submit the report to the Authority before being issued an EIA licence
- Public participation as conducted must be purposive and meaningful, with full disclosure of the project, per the Supreme Court's components in British American Tobacco
- A Special Use Licence under the Forest Conservation and Management Act is limited to activities whose primary purpose yields public benefit, and a regulator must demonstrate that a licence serves the statutory purpose
- A regulator cannot simultaneously grant a licence and later suspend it for want of assessments it should have required before issuance; approbating and reprobating is impermissible and suspension cannot cure an unlawful issuance
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the issuance of special use licence LIC005/2023 to Karura Golf Range Limited contravened and violated Articles 1, 2, 10, 35(1), 42(a&b), 47, 60, 62(1)(g) 3&4, 66 and 69 of the Constitution as read with the Forest Management and Conservation Act and the Forests (Participation in Sustainable Forest Management) Rules, and is invalid, null and void ab initio
- 2.Declaration that the issuance of NEMA EIA License NEMA/EIA/PSL/3643 contravened and violated Articles 1, 2, 10, 35(1), 42(a&b), 47, 60(1)(e), 62(4), 66 and 69 of the Constitution as read with EMCA and the Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003, and is invalid, null and void ab initio
- 3.Order of Judicial Review by way of certiorari quashing NEMA EIA License NEMA/EIA/PSL/3643 issued to Karura Golf Range Limited
- 4.Order of Judicial Review by way of certiorari quashing the special use licence LIC005/2023 granted to Karura Golf Range Limited
- 5.Order of Prohibition restraining the 2nd and 5th Respondents from implementing and/or reinstating the NEMA EIA License NEMA/EIA/PSL/3643
- 6.Order of Prohibition restraining the 3rd and 5th Respondents from implementing and/or reinstating the KFS Special Use License No. LIC005/2023
- 7.The 4th Respondent discharged from the proceedings
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional jurisdiction under Article 23(3) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (invoked in the reliefs); Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over environmental/forest land
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Law Society of Kenya v Karura Golf Range Ltd & 7 others (Environment and Land Petition E003 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1086 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Petition dated 7th January, 2025 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1086/eng@2026-02-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.