Imanyara & 4 others v County Government of Meru & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E010 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5077 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court has blocked all development of Imenti Forest—including an airstrip, state lodge and golf course—until the main case is fully heard.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the petition discloses a reasonable cause of action against the 1st respondent (County Government of Meru)
The petition discloses a reasonable cause of action against the 1st respondent; the totality of evidence showed some level of County involvement
The court examined the correspondence between the Governor of Meru County and the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Environment, including the letter seeking excision of a further 100 acres for a golf course, and the County's purported commissioning of public participation. It found the County involved and noted Upper Imenti Forest falls within the County's jurisdiction by dint of Sections 34 and 37 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act. A cause of action was thus established, though ultimate success is for plenary hearing.
Whether the applicants established a prima facie case warranting conservatory orders
Yes - non-compliance with EMCA ss. 57A and 58, the Forest Conservation and Management Act, and questionable public participation rendered the case arguable with inherent merits
The respondents, as project proponents, did not demonstrate compliance with the mandatory requirements of Sections 57A and 58 of EMCA requiring strategic environmental assessments and EIA licences, nor with the forest boundary-alteration process under the Forest Conservation and Management Act and the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act. The question of the quality of public participation could not be determined at the interlocutory stage but favoured the applicants, establishing an arguable case with inherent merits requiring plenary investigation.
Whether failure to grant conservatory orders would defeat the substratum of the petition
Yes - continuation of the projects would defeat the petition, and the precautionary principle commanded intervention
The substratum of the petition is preservation and conservation of the Upper Imenti Forest as part of the wider Mount Kenya ecosystem, engaging Articles 42 and 69 of the Constitution. The projects would have ripple effects on the environment, potentially affecting forest cover targets, water catchment and climate resilience. Given the precautionary principle in Section 3(5) of EMCA and the risk of irreversible consequences, conservatory orders were necessary to preserve the substratum of the petition.
Legal principles established
#- Conservatory orders ought to be granted on the inherent merit of a case, bearing in mind the public interest, the constitutional values, and the proportionate magnitudes and priority levels attributable to the relevant causes
- A prima facie case in civil cases is one in which on the material presented a tribunal properly directing itself will conclude that there exists a right which has apparently been infringed by the opposite party, calling for an explanation or rebuttal
- Public participation is a living constitutional principle that goes to the constitutional tenet of the sovereignty of the people and must be real and not illusory
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated 16.06.2026 be and is hereby allowed as hereunder
- 2.A conservatory order barring the respondents jointly and/or severally from undertaking the implementation of any decision, resolution, approval, license, permit, agreement, development plan, procurement process or administrative action relating to the proposed excision and development of Imenti Forest, pending the hearing and determination of the petition
- 3.An order of status quo directing that the character, ecological condition and legal status of Imenti Forest be preserved, conserved and maintained, pending the hearing and determination of the Petition
- 4.Prayers (6) and (7) of the Application dated 16.06.2026 are declined
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23, 35, 42, 69, 70 and 258 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Environment Management and Coordination Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Imanyara & 4 others v County Government of Meru & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E010 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5077 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 16.06.2026 within Petition (Meru ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5077/eng@2026-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.