A High Court sitting as the Environment and Land Court in Bungoma has dealt a heavy blow to the government's plan to build affordable houses at Kanduyi Airstrip. In a judgment delivered virtually on October 8, 2026, Justice K. Bor ruled that the Kanduyi Airstrip Smart City Affordable Housing Project was unconstitutional and unlawful. The judge said the government did not follow the laws that govern public land, environmental protection and public participation.
The project was meant to put up 2,034 housing units and social amenities on about 36.95 acres of land known as Bungoma Township/345. It had been planned as one of the flagship affordable housing projects in the region, and many local residents had been waiting for it to start. The construction contract was worth about Sh5.02 billion, including VAT, and had been awarded to Shyam General Merchants Limited. Now that the court has stopped the project, that money and those plans are in serious doubt.
The case was not a single complaint. The court heard three petitions that were combined into one case. One of them was filed by Barasa Nyukuri and Francis Simiyu Tome. They argued that the land had always been set aside for aviation purposes, and that turning it into a residential estate was wrong. The court agreed with them on the main point. It found that Bungoma Township/345 was public land reserved for aviation, and that changing its use without following the proper change-of-user process was against the law.
The judge also said the respondents, who were the people behind the project, had failed to prove that they followed the legal framework for giving out and converting public land. In simple words, they could not show that the paperwork and the procedures were done properly from the start. For a court looking at public land, that is a big problem.
Public participation was another major issue. The people who would be affected by the project were not properly consulted before it was approved. The court noted that the construction contract had already been awarded before a public participation meeting was held on January 14, 2026. Justice Bor said that consultation done after the big decisions had already been made does not count for much. He stressed that public participation must be real, and it must happen early enough for people to actually influence what the government decides.
The judge went further and said that environmental sustainability must be considered in such projects. He also insisted that women, children, young people and persons with disabilities should be meaningfully involved in decisions about public resources. These are groups that often get left out when big projects are planned, and the court wanted to send a clear message that this must change.
Because of these findings, the court declared the tender process for the project unconstitutional and void. It also issued a permanent injunction stopping the respondents from doing anything that goes against the land's designated use. This includes development, rezoning, selling, leasing, transferring or any other dealing that would interfere with the property in a way that is not lawful. The respondents were also told to carry out an environmental planning and land-use audit within 45 days.
The court ordered the land to be returned to its original state within 45 days. The responsibility for this falls on the respondents, who must do it jointly and severally, meaning they can each be held fully liable. All the restoration costs are to be met by the parties found responsible. The National Land Commission has been tasked with securing, protecting and managing the land in line with the Constitution and other laws that apply.
The judgment also went beyond the main parcel. The Kenya Airports Authority and the National Land Commission were ordered to find out within 14 days whether six other parcels of land formed part of the land reserved for the airstrip. These are Bungoma Municipality/610, 611, 612, 852, 795 and 799. If the investigations confirm that these parcels are part of the airstrip, the court said the same orders made in the petitions will apply to them as well. This could make the dispute much bigger than the original housing project.
The judge also ruled that the petitioners should be paid the costs of the case, and the respondents will have to pay them. In the court's view, the petitioners were right to go to court to protect public land and the environment, and the costs reflect that.
The court said the actions of the project's backers violated Articles 10, 42, 62 and 69 of the Constitution. These articles deal with national values and good governance, the right to a clean and healthy environment, public land, and the duty to protect the environment. The judge made it clear that these are not small matters, and that they must be respected even when the government is trying to solve a real problem like the shortage of affordable housing.
This ruling sends a strong message to government agencies and private developers across Kenya. The judge reminded everyone that good intentions do not cancel out the law. Affordable housing is badly needed in towns across the country, and many families are struggling to find a decent place to live. However, the court said such projects must still follow the Constitution and the law from start to finish.
For Bungoma residents, the immediate effect is that the Kanduyi project is on hold, and nobody knows yet when or if it will move forward. Many people who had hoped to own or rent one of the new houses will now have to wait longer. Others living near the airstrip may feel relieved that the land will be returned to its original purpose and protected for future use.
The decision is also likely to attract wider attention in the coming weeks. Many Kenyans have been watching how public land is managed, especially where large development projects are involved. The case shows how important public interest litigation is in holding state institutions to account, especially when decisions affect public assets and the environment. It also shows that citizens and their lawyers can challenge big government plans in court and win.
In the end, the ruling is a reminder that development and the law must go hand in hand. The government will need to decide whether to appeal the judgment or go back to the drawing board. Either way, any future plan for the Kanduyi site will have to be done properly, with real public input, a clear legal process and proper care for the environment. For now, the court has spoken, and the 45-day deadline to restore the land is already ticking.
0 Comments