The Environment and Land Court in Bungoma has invalidated a multibillion-shilling affordable housing project at Kanduyi Airstrip and directed the restoration of the disputed public land to its original condition within 45 days.
In a judgment delivered virtually on October 8, 2026, Justice K. Bor ruled that the proposed Kanduyi Airstrip Smart City Affordable Housing Project failed to meet constitutional and legal requirements governing public land, environmental protection and public participation.
The project was expected to deliver 2,034 housing units alongside social amenities on approximately 36.95 acres of land identified as Bungoma Township/345. The construction contract, worth about KSh 5.02 billion inclusive of VAT, had been awarded to Shyam General Merchants Limited.
The dispute arose from three consolidated constitutional petitions, including one filed by Barasa Nyukuri and Francis Simiyu Tome, challenging the conversion of land traditionally reserved for aviation into a residential development.
In its determination, the court found that the disputed property was public land designated for aviation purposes and could not lawfully be converted to a different use without following the prescribed procedures. The respondents failed to demonstrate compliance with the legal requirements for changing the land’s use and allocating it for the proposed development.
The court also found shortcomings in public consultation, stakeholder engagement, environmental safeguards and physical planning procedures, concluding that the project violated constitutional provisions on governance, environmental rights and the management of public land. Justice Bor declared the project’s tender process unconstitutional and void, effectively halting the development in its current form.
The court further issued a permanent injunction prohibiting activities that would conflict with the property’s lawful designation. The order bars unauthorised development, rezoning, leasing, transfer, alienation and other dealings inconsistent with the land’s legal status.
The respondents were also directed to conduct an environmental planning and land-use audit within 45 days. All expenses associated with restoring the property to its original condition are to be borne jointly and severally by the parties found responsible.
The National Land Commission was instructed to safeguard and manage the property in accordance with the Constitution and applicable laws. A key consideration in the judgment was the timing and adequacy of public participation before the project was approved.
The court noted that the construction contract had already been awarded before a public participation meeting took place on January 14, 2026. It rejected the argument that subsequent consultation could adequately address the failure to involve the public before major decisions were made.
The judge emphasised that public participation must occur early enough to allow citizens to influence decisions, rather than being treated as a formality after a project has already been set in motion. The judgment also highlighted the importance of environmental sustainability and the meaningful involvement of women, children, young people and persons with disabilities in decisions affecting public resources.
Separately, the court directed the Kenya Airports Authority and the National Land Commission to establish within 14 days whether six additional parcels of land — Bungoma Municipality/610, 611, 612, 852, 795 and 799 — form part of the land reserved for Kanduyi Airstrip. Should the investigations establish that the parcels fall within the airstrip reserve, the court’s declarations and orders will extend to those properties, subject to the necessary adjustments. The directive could expand the scope of the dispute and bring additional parcels under scrutiny.
The ruling underscores the requirement for government-backed development projects to comply with constitutional and statutory safeguards, including those governing public land, environmental protection and citizen participation.
For the Kanduyi housing project, the decision invalidates the tender process, restricts activities inconsistent with the land’s designated use and requires the disputed property to be restored within the period set by the court. The petitioners were also awarded the costs of the legal proceedings, to be paid by the respondents.
