The Environment and Land Court in Bungoma has nullified the proposed Kanduyi Airstrip Smart City Affordable Housing Project and ordered the restoration of the disputed public land within 45 days.

In a judgment delivered virtually on October 8, 2026, Justice K. Bor ruled that the project was unconstitutional and unlawful because of failures involving public land use, environmental protection, planning requirements and public participation.

The court directed the respondents to restore the property to its original condition, with the costs of restoration to be met by the parties held responsible.

The decision affects a proposed development expected to deliver 2,034 housing units and associated social amenities on approximately 36.95 acres identified as Bungoma Township/345.

The construction contract, valued at approximately KSh5.02 billion inclusive of VAT, had been awarded to Shyam General Merchants Limited.

Court Finds Change of Land Use Unlawful

The dispute arose from three consolidated constitutional petitions, including one filed by Barasa Nyukuri and Francis Simiyu Tome, challenging the decision to convert land historically reserved for aviation into a residential development.

In its judgment, the court found that Bungoma Township/345 was public land reserved for aviation purposes and that the process of converting it to another use had not complied with the legally prescribed requirements.

The respondents failed to demonstrate that they had followed the applicable legal framework for allocating and changing the use of the public property, according to the judgment.

The court consequently declared the project’s tender process unconstitutional and void.

Court Faults Public Participation Process

A central issue in the case was whether residents and other stakeholders had been adequately consulted before the project was approved and implementation began.

The court noted that the construction contract had been awarded before a public participation meeting held on January 14, 2026.

It rejected reliance on consultation conducted after key decisions had effectively been made, emphasising that public participation must be meaningful and take place early enough to influence government decisions.

The judge also highlighted the need to consider environmental sustainability and ensure that women, children, young people and persons with disabilities are meaningfully involved in decisions concerning public resources.

The court found that the project had proceeded without adequate public participation, sufficient stakeholder engagement and compliance with environmental and physical planning requirements.

Constitutional Rights and Environmental Safeguards

Justice Bor held that the actions challenged in the petitions violated Articles 10, 42, 62 and 69 of the Constitution.

These provisions address national values and principles of governance, the right to a clean and healthy environment, public land, and obligations relating to environmental protection.

The ruling reinforces the requirement that government development projects comply with constitutional and statutory safeguards, including when they are intended to address public needs such as affordable housing.

Permanent Injunction and Restoration Orders

Beyond nullifying the project, the court issued a permanent injunction barring the respondents from undertaking activities inconsistent with the land’s designated use.

The restrictions cover development, rezoning, alienation, leasing, transfer and other dealings that would interfere with the property contrary to its lawful status.

The respondents were also ordered to undertake an environmental planning and land-use audit within 45 days.

The National Land Commission was tasked with securing, protecting and managing the land in accordance with the Constitution and applicable legislation.

The restoration order requires the respondents, jointly and severally, to return the property to its pre-project condition within the prescribed period.

Court Orders Investigation Into Six Other Parcels

The judgment also directed the Kenya Airports Authority and the National Land Commission to establish within 14 days whether six additional parcels formed part of the land reserved for Kanduyi Airstrip.

The parcels are Bungoma Municipality/610, 611, 612, 852, 795 and 799.

If the investigations confirm that the parcels are part of the airstrip, the court ruled that the declarations and remedies issued in the consolidated petitions would extend to them, with the necessary modifications.

The directive could widen the scope of the dispute beyond the main parcel targeted for the housing project.

The petitioners were also awarded the costs of the proceedings, payable by the respondents.

Implications for Affordable Housing Development

The ruling places the proposed Kanduyi project in a new legal position, with the tender process nullified and development inconsistent with the land’s lawful designation prohibited.

It also underscores the role of public-interest litigation in scrutinising decisions involving public assets, environmental protection and government development programmes.

The immediate requirements are the court-ordered restoration of the disputed property, completion of the environmental planning and land-use audit, and clarification of the status of the six additional parcels.

The case highlights the legal obligations public agencies must meet before proceeding with large-scale developments on public land.