A planned project at Imenti State Lodge has been brought to a standstill after the High Court ruled that the development cannot proceed until it determines whether it complies with the Constitution, saying there is a real risk of irreversible environmental damage if the works continue.
The decision, delivered on Thursday, followed a constitutional petition filed by activist Francis Awino and three other petitioners challenging the legality of the proposed project. The court granted conservatory orders, finding that preserving the site was necessary while the constitutional issues raised in the case are heard and determined.
In its ruling, the court said allowing the project to continue before reaching a final decision could defeat the purpose of the petition if the challengers ultimately succeed.
It observed that work on the project had already begun and warned that continued activity could permanently change the area, making it impossible to restore it to its previous condition.
"The project has started, and restoring the status quo may not be possible if it proceeds," the court noted.
The judge further held that denying the conservatory orders would effectively deprive the petitioners of meaningful access to justice because any eventual ruling in their favour would have little practical effect if the project had already been completed.
The court said it relied on the precautionary principle in reaching its decision, explaining that where there is a possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm, the disputed project should be preserved until the constitutional questions before the court have been resolved.
As a result, the court allowed the Notices of Motion dated June 8 and June 26, 2026, and ordered the suspension of the proposed project together with any related actions by the State until the petition is heard and determined.
According to the ruling, the conservatory orders are intended to protect constitutional values, including environmental conservation under Articles 10 and 69 of the Constitution, while the court examines the issues raised by the petitioners.
Awino and the three other petitioners argue that the proposed project violates constitutional safeguards on environmental protection, public participation, fair administrative action and the management of public land. Their petition cites Articles 10, 42, 47, 62, 69 and 70 of the Constitution.
The petitioners maintain that public forests are public land held in trust for both present and future generations and argue that the State has a constitutional duty to conserve and protect them. They contend that any development affecting such areas must comply with constitutional and legal requirements.
The case is scheduled for hearing on September 28, 2026, when the court will consider the constitutional questions raised and determine the future of the proposed project.