The High Court is set to deliver a ruling on July 30, 2026, on whether to temporarily stop any proposed developments within Upper Imenti Forest as it considers a constitutional petition challenging planned projects and recent amendments to the Forest Conservation and Management Act.
The ruling date was scheduled after all parties filed written submissions regarding an application seeking conservatory orders to prevent any excision, allocation, licensing or development activities within the protected forest pending the determination of the main case.
National Assembly Opposes Conservatory Orders
In its submissions, the National Assembly urged the court to dismiss the application, arguing that the petitioners had failed to meet the legal threshold required for the issuance of conservatory orders.
The National Assembly maintained that the petition was based on speculation rather than verified evidence, insisting that no government agency had approved or initiated any of the projects referenced in the petition.
According to Parliament, there is currently no official decision to excise, allocate, license or authorize development within Upper Imenti Forest.
The National Assembly further argued that claims relating to the construction of an airstrip, State Lodge, golf course and the extension of the Meru Bypass Road were unsupported and largely based on newspaper reports and social media posts.
It described the sources relied upon by the petitioners as hearsay and lacking evidentiary value before the court.
Parliament Defends Forest Law Amendments
The National Assembly also defended amendments to Section 56(2) of the Forest Conservation and Management Act.
According to its submissions, the amendments only permit easements for public roads and utilities and do not provide legal authority for the developments being challenged in the petition.
Parliament warned that granting conservatory orders could interfere with its legislative mandate and potentially delay important public infrastructure projects, arguing that such a move would not be in the public interest.
Petitioners Insist Forest Faces Real Threat
Petitioner Francis Awino, however, urged the court to issue the interim orders, arguing that the threat facing Upper Imenti Forest is genuine.
In a supplementary affidavit, Awino told the court that the respondents had effectively acknowledged that government agencies were evaluating proposals related to a State Lodge, golf course, Kithoka Airstrip and the extension of the Meru Bypass Road near the forest.
“The threat to the forest is real and not speculative,” Awino argued, maintaining that the respondents’ own responses indicated that the projects were under consideration.
He also challenged the public participation process undertaken for the proposed Kithoka Airstrip, claiming that environmental experts, conservation groups and other key stakeholders were excluded from the consultations.
Awino further argued that members of the public were not provided with sufficient environmental and technical information to enable meaningful participation before the projects were considered.
Petition Seeks Protection of Upper Imenti Forest
The petition seeks court orders barring any excision, allocation, licensing or development activities within Upper Imenti Forest until the constitutional challenge against the proposed projects and legislative amendments is fully heard and determined.
The July 30 ruling is expected to determine whether temporary protection orders will be issued as the court prepares to hear the substantive case.
