East Africa Wildlife Life Society (EAWLS) v Kenya Forest Service & 8 others (Environment and Land Petition E012 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5060 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court has temporarily blocked state lodge, airstrip and golf course projects in Upper Imenti Forest until a conservation petition is fully heard.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case warranting conservatory orders
Yes - the petition is arguable with inherent merits, particularly on the alleged absence of real public participation and non-compliance with EMCA and related statutory requirements before commencement of the projects.
The court held that a conservatory order applicant must show an arguable case with inherent merits. The proponents had not demonstrated compliance with Sections 57A and 58 of EMCA (Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Licence) or the mandatory processes in the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act. The quality of public participation could only be determined at plenary hearing, but if absent as alleged, a prima facie case arises. The assertions raised pertinent issues worthy of interrogation at full trial.
Whether failure to grant the conservatory orders would defeat the substratum of the petition
Yes - the continuation of the projects before determination would defeat the petition, whose crux is the preservation and conservation of the Upper Imenti Forest and the environment under Article 42.
The court found the petition's substratum is preservation and conservation of the Upper Imenti Forest, part of the Mount Kenya ecosystem, implicating Article 69 principles including the 10% forest cover target, sustainable development, water catchment protection and carbon sink preservation. Allowing the projects to continue before the petition is heard would produce ripple effects on the environment and drive the petitioner away from the seat of justice prematurely. The precautionary principle under Section 3(5) of EMCA supported preservation of the substratum.
The quality of public participation undertaken by the proponents
Not determinable at the interlocutory stage; it requires examination of evidence at plenary hearing, though the public participation framework from British American Tobacco was set out as the governing test.
The respondents exhibited minutes purporting to show public participation in favour of the projects. The court held that whether there was prior public awareness, meaningful engagement and involvement of key stakeholders such as the applicant cannot be resolved on the affidavits but requires a plenary hearing. The Supreme Court's framework in British American Tobacco was reproduced as the guideline for assessing the constitutional threshold of public participation.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for a conservatory order must demonstrate a prima facie case with a likelihood of success, not merely a speculative arguable case.
- Conservatory orders are public-law orders granted on the inherent merit of a case, bearing in mind public interest, constitutional values and proportionate magnitudes.
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated the 26.06.2026 be and is hereby allowed
- 2.A conservatory order restraining the respondents from initiating and/or continuing the setting up, implementation, establishing, operating, approving or permitting construction and/or any infrastructure development within the Upper Imenti Forest Reserve, pending the hearing and determination of the petition
- 3.A conservatory order restraining the respondents from degazetting and/or accessing any part of the Upper Imenti Forest for development, operation and constructing of a state lodge, airstrip/airport and golf course, pending the hearing and determination of the Petition
- 4.A conservatory order restraining the respondents from allocating, surveying, licensing, clearing, fencing, construction, or undertaking any activity relating to the construction of the proposed state lodge, airstrip/airport and golf course or any other way within the Upper Imenti Forest Reserve, pending the hearing and determination of the Petition
- 5.Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the Petition
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23, 258 and 162(2) of the Constitution, 2010; Rules 4, 23 and 34 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules 2013
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "East Africa Wildlife Life Society (EAWLS) v Kenya Forest Service & 8 others (Environment and Land Petition E012 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5060 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 26.06.2026 within a constitutional petition (petition number not stated in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5060/eng@2026-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.