Justice Oguttu Mboya certified the matter as urgent and directed that the case be heard on a priority basis, while ordering the maintenance of the status quo over the forest to prevent any activities that could alter its current state.
“In the meantime, and to preserve the crux of the Petition and the Subject Application, there be and is hereby granted an Order for the Maintenance of Status Quo over and in respect of the Suit Property [the designated Water Tower] pending further Orders and Directions of the Court,” the judge ordered.
The court further directed that the respondents be restrained from “commencing or undertaking any activities that may lead to alienation, excision or wastage of the designated forest” until further directions are issued.
The petition was filed by Francis Awino, who is seeking to stop any planned developments within Imenti Forest amid concerns that sections of the forest could be earmarked for projects reportedly including an airstrip, a golf course and a State Lodge.
Awino argues that public reports and statements concerning the proposed projects have raised fears that portions of the forest may be altered, excised or otherwise interfered with, threatening the ecological integrity of one of the country’s important water towers.
In his petition, he seeks conservatory orders barring government agencies and any other parties from excising, allocating, licensing, surveying, clearing, fencing, constructing on or otherwise dealing with any part of Imenti Forest pending the determination of the case.
He is also asking the court to compel relevant public agencies to preserve and produce records linked to the alleged developments, including correspondence, internal memoranda, survey records, maps, environmental impact assessment reports, special user licence applications, easement requests and any approvals connected to the projects.
According to court documents, the petition challenges the constitutionality and application of the 2025 amendment to Section 56(2) of the Forest Conservation and Management Act. Awino contends that the amendment weakened safeguards for public forests by allowing roads, utilities, pipelines and related infrastructure projects to proceed through a less stringent legal process.
The petitioner argues that the threatened actions violate constitutional provisions on environmental protection, public participation, fair administrative action and the management of public land, citing Articles 10, 42, 47, 62, 69 and 70 of the Constitution.
He maintains that public forests are held in trust for present and future generations and that the State has a constitutional obligation to conserve and protect them from degradation.
The court directed that the application be served upon the respondents within two days. The respondents were granted seven days to file their responses, while the petitioner was given leave to file a supplementary affidavit thereafter.
The matter is scheduled for inter partes hearing on June 29, 2026.
The interim orders effectively bar any activity capable of altering, excising or otherwise affecting Imenti Forest until the court considers the parties’ arguments and issues further directions.
