Gakuru & 2 others (Suing on their own Behalf and on Behalf of JWA Thika Subcounty)) v County Government of Kiambu & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E012 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5106 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that even a major national housing project must obey court orders, holding the Housing Principal Secretary in contempt and halting construction in Thika.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Proper service on a government ministry and validity of the contempt finding
Service was properly effected; the Principal Secretary was personally liable despite claiming documents never reached his desk
The Court relied on the official receiving stamps on the order dated 27/05/2025 bearing the 2nd Respondent's stamp of 28/05/2025 and the Attorney General's stamp of 30/05/2025. It held that delivery to the official registry with a receiving stamp satisfies the petitioner's obligation, and to hold otherwise would reward internal administrative neglect and make service on government a practical impossibility.
Whether the magnitude of a national housing project justifies abdication of judicial enforcement
No; the right to housing cannot be pursued at the expense of fair process, public participation and the rule of law
The Court held that Article 43(1)(b) is a justiciable socio-economic right subject to progressive realization, but no right exists in isolation. A Presidential Directive does not override the Constitution, and Article 10 binds all State organs to the rule of law and participation. Judicial superintendence of constitutional compliance is not obstruction of development.
Competence of an Advocate's affidavit deposing to contentious facts
Such an affidavit is fundamentally defective and worthless, but here the defect went to probative value, not admissibility, since independent evidence sufficed
Relying on Republic v Attorney General ex parte South and Central (Thika) Investments Ltd and Life Insurance Corporation of India v Panesar, the Court agreed an Advocate cannot straddle the bar and witness box. However, the institutional stamps, site visit report and Mulandi's depositions independently grounded the findings, so weight rather than admissibility was affected.
Whether coercive orders can lie against a party divested of possession and control
They cannot lie against the 1st Respondent, but they properly lie against the 2nd Respondent as implementing agency in operational command
The Court accepted that the County Government had handed over the site before the suit and exercised no operational authority, so injunctive or coercive orders could not issue against it. The 2nd Respondent, as implementing agency for the Affordable Housing Board in full operational command, remained properly subject to a mandatory injunction and OCS-enforced stop order.
Legal principles established
#- Every person against whom a court order is made must obey it until it is discharged
- Service on a government ministry is complete upon delivery to the official registry and receipt of a receiving stamp; internal routing failures do not defeat service
- A Presidential Directive and project magnitude cannot override the Constitution or immunize a project from judicial scrutiny or court orders
- Court orders are coercive directives, not requests
Court orders
#- 1.The 2nd Respondent's Application dated 12/02/2026 allowed only to the extent that the Main Petition dated 26/08/2024 is fast-tracked for an expedited full hearing; to the extent it seeks to set aside the Ruling of 4/11/2025 and the contempt finding, it is dismissed
- 2.The 2nd Respondent, the Principal Secretary, State Department for Housing, is found to be in contempt of Court for willful disobedience of the Court's Order
- 3.The requirement for the Principal Secretary to personally appear in Court to show cause why he should not be committed to civil jail is dispensed with, with a strong caution against future non-compliance
- 4.The Application dated 26/03/2026 by the 1st and 2nd Petitioners is allowed; a further mandatory injunction restraining the 2nd Respondent, its agents, servants, contractors and sub-contractors from carrying out any construction on Thika Municipality Block 11/343 pending hearing and determination of the Petition
- 5.The Officer Commanding Station, Thika Police Station, is directed and empowered to enforce the stop-order, ensure no construction takes place, and arrest and arraign any person found trespassing or constructing in violation
- 6.The Inspector General of Police is put on notice and directed to facilitate the OCS Thika in execution of the orders
- 7.Costs of both Applications to be borne by the 2nd Respondent and to be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21), Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011, and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gakuru & 2 others (Suing on their own Behalf and on Behalf of JWA Thika Subcounty)) v County Government of Kiambu & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E012 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5106 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLPET. NO. E012 OF 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5106/eng@2026-07-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.