https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3182

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MURANG’A** **ELCL PET E002 OF 2024** **IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 40, 47, 60 (1) (b), 64, 162 (2) AND 165 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF CONTRAVENTION, VIOLATION AND INFRINGEMENT IF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLES 40, 47, 60 (1) (B) AND 64 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010** **IN THE MATTER OF CONTRAVENTION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 AND 148 OF THE LAND ACT, NO. 6 OF 2012** **IN THE MATTER OF CONTRAVENTION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS IN THE LAND (ASSESSMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION RULES, 2017)** **BETWEEN** **KIGIO GROUP COMPANY LIMITED……………………………………………..PETITIONER** **-VERSUS-** **KENYA ELECTICITY TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED……….....1ST RESPONDENT** **SMEC INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED…………………….…....….2ND RESPONDENT** **ADANI ENERGY SOLUTIONS LIMITED…………………………..….…....3RD RESPONDENT** **ATTORNEY-GENERAL………………………………….………………....….4TH RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** 1. In this petition, the Petitioner seeks the following reliefs against the Respondents. 2. **A declaration that the Respondents' action of seeking to curtail, undermine and deprive the Petitioner of its property without compensation is unfair, unlawful and unconstitutional.** 3. **That the conduct of the 1st Respondent’s Managing Director violates Article 10(2) of the Constitution.** 4. **A declaration that the intended acquisition of the Petitioner's land by the Respondents without adhering to the strict and mandatory provisions of the Constitution and the Land Act (Act No 6 of 2012) violates the Petitioner's Constitutional rights of ownership of property guaranteed under Article 40 (3) (a) and (b) of the Constituting of Kenya.** 5. **A declaration that the Respondents’ actions are in violation of statutory provisions particularly section 144 of the Land Act.** 6. **A declaration that failure by the Respondents to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Land Act violates the Petitioner's Constitutional right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair as guaranteed under Article 47 of the Constitution.** 7. **A declaration and an order that an amount of Kshs. 1 billion should be deposited into the Petitioner's account being the minimum acceptable offer previously made to the Petitioner for the land pending the valuation and assessment of the impact the Respondents 400 KV Gilgil – Thika – Malaa Konza transmission line is likely to have on the Petitioner's land.** 8. **A declaration that the Petitioner's property will be rendered entirely untenable for the intended sale and to raise the market price the Petitioner has been offered land commensurate to the market value of the land.** 9. **A declaration that the Petitioner is entitled to 100% loss of user of its property should any wayleave be created thereon as proposed by the Respondents**. 10. **A declaration that just fair and fair compensation be promptly paid to the Petitioner in the following terms.** * Kshs 1 billion to be paid immediately to the Petitioner's account to enable it settle its indebtedness and to forestall the sale by public auction of its property known as LR. No. 4953/IV/45 and 46 Thika Municipality Block 9/96 and 558. * A joint Valuation and Environmental and Social Impact Assessment be conducted by experts appointed by the Petitioner on the one hand and the Respondents on the other hand to determine the full value of the Petitioner's land and the damages likely to be caused thereon by the proposed line. * That the amount found due over and above Kshs. 1 billion after the valuation be paid to the Petitioner within 15 days from the date of the filing the valuation and ESIA reports in Court. * That the valuation and ESIA be conducted and a report filed in Court within 90 days from the date of filing of this suit. * That the 1st Respondent be compelled to pay for the costs of conducting the reports and ESIA before the reports are filed in Court. * In the alternative and without prejudice to the foregoing an order of Prohibition be issued against the Respondents by themselves, their agents, servants and or employees from trespassing, tracing a wayleave, excavating foundations, erecting towers and/or interfering with the Petitioners quiet possession and occupation of its land parcel L.R. No. 10876/2/3/4 Thika (also known as Mihando Coffee Estate) and to relocate the 400 KV - Gilgil - Thika – Malaa - Konza transmissions line wayleave trace to any other place outside the Petitioner's land. * General, aggravated and punitive damages. * Costs and interest or all monetary awards at 14 % per annum from the date of the filing of this petition until payment in full. 11. The Petitioner's case is as follows. Firstly, the Petitioner which is a limited liability Company owns LR. Nos. 10876/3 and 10876/4 which are subdivisions of L.R. No. 10876/2. The Petitioner has been in quiet possession of the suit land since the year 1964. Secondly, on 12-8-2021, the 1st Respondent wrote to the Petitioner seeking to purchase a portion of land measuring 25 acres out of the suit land for the purposes of building a substation. The Petitioner sought advice and decided not to accept the 1st Respondent's offer. One reason for rejecting the offer was that after the sale of the 25 acres, there was need to create wayleaves on the remainder of the unsold land for at least 6 high voltage power lines feeding into the substation and numerous others exiting the substation in all directions rendering the remainder of the land untenable (unusable). The other reason was that the shareholders of the company had approved the subdivision and sale of 100 acres of the suit land to clear a loan to the Housing Finance Company Limited which was in arrears and there was danger of the suit land being sold to recover the loan balance. The Petitioner had other plans with its land and it was embroiled in about nine (9) other cases. 1. Thirdly, on 12/2/2024, the Petitioner's directors were summoned by the local Chief and Assistant Commissioner to a meeting to be held at Del View Mall Thika on 16/2/2024. The Petitioner was informed that the meeting was being convened by the 1st Respondent. At the meeting of 16/2/2024, the 1st Respondent did not attend. Instead, those in attendance were personnel from the 2nd Respondent who did not disclose their names or the agenda of the meeting. The Petitioner voiced its rejection of the offer by the 1st Respondent. The Respondents did not respect the wishes of the Petitioner because another meeting was called by the Respondents on 2/3/2024. The outcome was not conclusive because the Respondents’ agents were not willing to provide documents or shed light on what their intentions were. 2. Fourthly, on 27/2/2024, the 1st Respondent wrote a letter to the Petitioner purporting that it was not proponent of the project. At yet another meeting at Gathambara Primary School in Gatanga, a Dr. Kaburi from the 2nd Respondent disclosed that the project was a public private partnership in which the 1st Respondent had contracted the 3rd Respondent, an Indian Engineering Company which had in turn subcontracted the 2nd Respondent which was involved in engaging stakeholders in public participation. Again, on 8/3/2024, the Respondents summoned the Petitioner's directors to another meeting at ACK Memorial Church Hall at Thika. At the meeting the Petitioner’s directors were supplied with four documents namely: 1. **The Report dated 14/2/2017 on ESIA for the 400 KV Gilgil-Thika-Nairobi East-Konza Power Transmission line.** 2. **Letter dated 18/12/2023 issued by the 1st Respondent introducing the 3rd Respondent.** 3. **Letter dated 21-12-2023 issued by the 3rd Respondent introducing the 2nd Respondent.** 4. **A route map of the proposed transmission line.** 3. Fifthly, in the report in (a) above, the proponent of the project is indicted to be the 1st Respondent, yet in the letter of 27/2/2024, the 1st Respondent’s Managing Director said that they are not the proponents. In the said report, the areas covered are indicated as Nakuru, Nyandarua, Kiambu and Machakos. The Petitioner’s land is in Murang'a County which is not covered by the report. The said report is more than 7 years old and therefore obsolete on account of shifting vicissitudes of the envisaged landscape and route of the proposed line. Reliance on an obsolete report is clear bad faith and the project is laced with malafides, deception and high handedness on the part of the Respondents. The profits from project will be channelled to private individuals and the private profits should not be earned by adversely affecting the Petitioner's land. 4. Sixthly, on 11/3/2024, the Petitioner wrote to the 1st Respondent to reiterate its objection to the creation of wayleaves on its land and to seek clarification on who the proponent of the project was. No response to the letter has made by the 1st Respondent. Yet another letter was written to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents on 13/3/2024 to clarify a few matters on the project. Similarly, the letter was not responded to. 5. Seventhly, from the above explained conduct of the Respondents the following is clear. 6. **The Respondents are driven by sinister motives to deprive the Petitioner of its land.** 7. **The Respondents have not conducted any Environmental and Social Impact Assessment in the area. This is discriminatory because the said assessment has been conducted for other areas where the line will traverse except Murang'a.** 8. **The Respondents actions are unlawful, unprocedural and aimed at depriving the Petitioner and its elderly nonagenarian shareholders of their property contrary to Article 40(3) of the Constitution.** 9. **The proposed project will destroy the Petitioners land rendering it worthless.** 10. **The secretive, unreasonable and high handed conduct of the Respondents has made it necessary to file this petition to seek protection of the Court.** 11. **It is in the interest of justice to uphold the rule of law that the Court prohibits the Respondents from subverting the Petitioner’s right to property.** 12. **That the Petitioner’s right to its property is protected and the actions of the Respondents should not be condoned especially if the same are calculated benefit private foreign companies.** 13. **If the Respondents are to create a way leave on the suit land the same should be produced by prompt payment of first compensation pursuant to Article 40 of the Constitution.** 14. **The Petitioner is entitled to fair administrative action on an opportunity to be heard before any adverse action is taken against it as per Article 47 of the Constitution.** 15. **That the Petitioner’s property rights as guaranteed under Articles 40 and 64 of the Constitution are gravely threatened by the actions of the 1st Respondent and its agents in attempting and threatening to trespass and conduct illegal and unauthorized activities on the suit property.** For the above and other reasons, the Petitioner prays for the prayers in the petition. 1. In support of the petition, the Petitioners filed the following material. 1. **Affidavit by the Chairman of the Petitioner, S N Ndegwa, dated 9/4/2024.** 2. **Copy of sale agreement which is undated.** 3. **Copy of statutory notice dated 24/3/2017.** 4. **Public auction notifications by Garam auctioneers.** 5. **Various correspondence between the Petitioner, Vero G. Enterprise Ltd, Francis T M Kagundah, the 1st Respondent, the 3rd Respondent and Housing Finance Company of Kenya Ltd.** 6. **Copy of minutes of meeting held on 2/3/2024 at Gathambara Primary School.** 7. **Copy of ESIA for the proposed Gilgil-Thika-Nairobi East-Konza 400 KV Power Transmission Line study report dated February 2017.** 2. In opposing the petition, the 1st Respondent filed a replying affidavit dated 7/11/2025, sworn by J Muthoka, Senior Manager Wayleave acquisition. In the affidavit, the 1st Respondent states as follows. One, it is a state corporation with the mandate of building electricity transmission lines and operating Kenya National Electricity Transmissions Grid pursuant to sessional paper No. 4 of 2004 on Energy. Two, the 1st Respondent had intentions of constructing the 400 KV Gilgil -Thika-Malaa-Konza transmission line project and to facilitate its execution, the 1st Respondent conducted an Environment and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) through area of its consultants Enwag Company Ltd. The consultant produced the ESIA study report dated February 2017. The project could not proceed for lack of funds. Several years later, the project was revived through the Public Private Partnerships Act 2021 which was meant to avert the financial strain of implementing projects from the public coffers. 1. Three, on 21/11/2024, the Government of Kenya cancelled all agreements involving the 3rd Respondent including the one the subject of this petition. It is on record that the Petitioners advocate acknowledged in Court that the 3rd Respondent’s contract had been cancelled. It would therefore be academic to proceed with this petition as filed following the cancellation. 2. Four, the cancellation of all PPP agreement was communicated by the 1st Respondent to the 3rd Respondent on 28//7/2025. It was the duty of the 3rd Respondent to undertake the feasibility study in respect to the Petitioner’s land and submit it to the Directorate of PPP for approval. The ESIA report dated 14/2/2017 was prepared before PPP Act 2021 came into force and it is overtaken by events and changes in the law making it inapplicable for the project that is to be implemented under the new law. Before the cancellation of its contract, the 3rd Respondent had prepared an ESIA report which had been vetted by the 1st Respondent and approved by the Directorate of PPP. It was also the duty of the 3rd Respondents to propose compensation packages and deal with the rights of way, land acquisition and resettlement plans where applicable. The 2nd Respondent was contracted by the 3rd Respondent as a consultant for this purpose. 3. Five, the Petitioner has failed to set out with a reasonable degree of precision, the manner in which the 1st Respondent has infringed on its rights. While the Constitution at Article 40(3) forbids deprivation of property without just and full compensation, Section 28 (i) of the Land Registration Act recognizes electric supply lines as overriding interests. The averments by the Petitioner are founded on a grave misapprehension of the PPP Act 2021. The demand by the Petitioner of compensation of Kshs.1 billion is speculative yet the loss of user by the Petitioner will not be 100%. 4. Six, the petition is premature and filed by the Petitioner to hoodwink its creditors. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 1st Respondent intends to acquire a wayleave on any of the suit properties without proving compensation. The Petitioner has also failed to demonstrate violation of Article 10(2) of the Constitution and has jumped the gun by not allowing the 3rd Respondent to issue an offer for compensation, filing this petition before acquisition of a wayleave, failing to understand that acquisition of wayleave is not outright purchase but a right of way governed by Sections 143 and 145 of the Land Act. 5. Seven, the 1st Respondent, accepted the Petitioners letter dated 13/10/2021 in which it said that it was not interested in selling any part of its land to the 1st Respondent. After this letter, all that remained was the issue of wayleave and not purchase of 25 acres. The 1st Respondent is unaware of the events of 12th and 16th February, 2nd and 3rd March 2024 which the Petitioner describes as summons and meetings of the project affected persons. Finally, the route map for the proposed transmission line will not traverse the suit land. For the above, the 1st Respondent prays for the dismissal of the Petition with costs. 1. In support of its response the 1st Respondent filed the following evidence. 1. **Replying affidavit dated 7/11/2025.** 2. **Copy of letter dated 28/7/2025 from the 1st Respondent to the 2nd Respondent.** 3. **Copies of letters dated 12/8/2021 and 13/10/2021 between the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent.** 4. **Copy of the route map for the proposed power line.** 2. The 2nd Respondent filed a replying affidavit dated 14/6/2024 sworn by M. I. Dizamuhupe, its functional manager, power and energy. He responds as follows. Firstly, the petition has not made a specific claim or allegation against the 2nd Respondent but rather generalised complaints against the Respondents for alleged breaches of the Petitioner's right to property and right for fair administrative action. There is therefore no cause of action against the 2nd Respondent. 1. Secondly, the petition is prematurely before the Court because under section 146 (1) of the Land Act, the dispute should have been referred to the National Land Commission and the Cabinet Secretary for Lands. The Petitioner has therefore disregarded the doctrine of exhaustion which requires that a party first exhausts all available dispute resolution mechanisms before filing a suit in Court. 2. Thirdly, the 2nd Respondent entered into a consultancy contract with the 3rd Respondent dated 17/12/2023. The scope of work under the consultancy was to conduct technical, financial legal and economic feasibility studies, a PPP suitability assessment or value for money assessment ESIA, and Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) studies for the project. It also included anticipated damages, proposed compensation packages and human resettlement plan where applicable. This work was completed by April 2024 as per the consultancy contract. 3. Fourthly, the 2nd Respondent conducted public awareness and public participation exercises by introducing the project to the county Commissioner Murang'a, the Chief of Samuru locations, placing public notices at Jogoo Kimakia gate of the Anglican Church and another at the gate leading to a gated community. Other notices were placed at Delview Business Park (4 notices in total) and one at Ola petrol station on the Thika Gatanga road near Milestone/Enkasiti farms. All these notices were prominently displayed and exposed that a public meeting would be held on 16/2/2024 at Bell View market in Samuru location. Eventually on 16/2/202, a public meeting was held at Bell view market with around 50 attendees who included representatives of Peponi Bahati Ridge, Mihando, Penda, Kenya Nut Company, Golf Estate, White Stone, Silk Roses, Korale Karlo, Moi primary, Westhood Karangata Development plots, Golden Pearls and Gatanga Roses. It is unfortunate that the Petitioners directors did not attend though invited. Further public engagement happened on 8/3/2024 with the project’s affected persons. Between 22/2/2024 and 23/2/2024, the 2nd Respondent's representatives visited and interviewed each PAP on their farms. During the visits the wayleave was measured, the affected areas identified and photographs taken. Finally on the point, a wayleave cannot be created without the consent of the land owner and there are clear statutory provisions that guide the process. 1. Finally, the 2nd Respondent has completed all the ESIA and RAP studies and generated draft reports which have been submitted to the 3rd Respondents as per the consultancy contract. Eventually, the final reports will be submitted to the National Environment Management Authority and the Chief valuer for their review and approval. The process is not yet over because NEMA is yet to publish the studies by the 2nd defendant in the Kenya Gazette and a newspaper of nationwide circulation. Owing to the incomplete processes, the petition is prematurely filed and it should be addressed in the right forum and the right time. For the above and other reasons, the 2nd Respondent prays for the dismissal of the petition. 1. The third Respondent did not file any response to the petition. The fourth Respondent filed grounds of opposition dated 22/7/2024 which read as follows. Firstly, under Regulation 17 of the Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit Regulations 2003, at least three public meetings should be held with the affected parties. Secondly, the due process has been complied with and a wayleave cannot prevent the sale of land. The intending buyer will buy the property knowing that it has been encumbered by a wayleave hence the Petitioner cannot be sued for damages. Thirdly, the wayleave is for public purposes and prompt and just compensation will be paid for losses incurred hence the acquisition is justifiable and not unconstitutional. It is only when the transmission lines traverse the Petitioners land that is can be compensated. Fourthly, under section 64 of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act 1999 ,a new EIA will only be submitted if there is a substantial charge in the project. The shifting vicissitudes of the landscape do not render the report obsolete. Finally, written reasons were given to the Petitioner over the actions of the 1st Respondents thus there was not contravention of Article 47 of the Constitution. Counsel for the 4th Respondent has submitted orally that it is a matter of public notoriety that the contracts between the 1st and 3rd Respondents in relation to the project herein were cancelled by the Government of Kenya. No evidence of such cancellation was ever filed. 1. The only written submissions on record are by the Petitioner’s counsel and counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents. They are dated 10/12/2025, 9/3/2026 and 10-4-2026 respectively. The issues that arise from the written submissions are as follows. * + 1. **Whether the Respondents have been transparent in dealing with the Petitioner.** 2. **Whether the 3rd Respondent could lawfully acquire wayleaves under the Public Private Partnerships (PPP) Act without involving the 1st Respondent.** 3. **Whether the petition is prematurely filed in Court before exhausting all statutory and procedural mechanisms.** 4. **Whether an agent can be sued for acts done on behalf of a named and known principal.** 5. **Whether the Respondents are responsible for the auction of the Petitioner's property.** 6. **Whether this Court should issue the structural interdicts as suggested by the Petitioner.** 7. **Which of the reliefs sought if any, should be granted.** 8. **Who should bear the costs.** 1. I have carefully considered the petition in its entirely including the grounds, the supporting affidavit by the Petitioner, the replying affidavits by the 1st and 2nd Respondents as well as the grounds of opposition by the 4th Respondent. I have also considered the written submissions on record. I find as follows on the issues identified by learned counsel for the parties. 2. On the issues of transparency, I find that the Respondents have not been transparent in dealing with the Petitioner. Transparency is one of the national values and principles of governance that bind all state organs, state officers, public officers and all persons whenever any of them makes or implements public policy decisions. It is specifically provided for in Article 10 (20 (c) of the constitution. It states as follows: **10(1) “The National values and principles of governance in this Article shall bind all state organs, state officers, public officers and all persons whenever any of them-** **(a)** **(b)** **(c) Make or implements public policy decisions**. **2)** **The National values and principles of governance include -** **c) good governance, integrity, transparency and accountability....”** To begin with, the question of the cancellation or termination of the 400 KV – Gilgil-Thika-Malaa - Konza Transmission line has never been confirmed in writing by the Respondents. The easiest way to do so would have been to file the evidence of its termination. The Respondents were given sufficient time to do so by this Court but they did not comply. It is not possible that a contract of this magnitude would have been cancelled orally. This is not the type of contract that is expected to be oral. Both its initiation and termination must be in writing. The failure by the 1st and 4th Respondents to file evidence of termination is lack of transparent. The second instance of lack of transparency by the Respondents is issuing the Petitioner with the ESIA report dated 14/2/2017 on the 400 KV Gilgil-Thika-Nairobi East – Konza power transmission line in the meeting of 8/3/2024 at ACK Memorial Church Hall at Thika instead of the ESIA report purportedly prepared by the 2nd Respondent. This demonstrates lack of good faith on the part of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents. Other instances of lack of transparency include failure to come clear on who the proponent of the project is between the 1st and 3rd Respondents. Many others have been proved by the Petitioner but the above three will suffice. 1. It is my finding that the 3rd Respondents could not lawfully acquire wayleaves under any circumstances without involving the 1st Respondent. Under Section 144 of the Land Act, it is National Land commission which is mandated to initiate the creation of a wayleave. It could do this on its own behalf or on behalf of any state department, County Government or public body. The affidavit of the functional manager of the 2nd Respondent states that it is the 2nd Respondent that measured the wayleave. The 1st Respondent was completely left out of the picture in this crucial exercise. 2. This Court has already ruled that this petition is not prematurely filed. This is in the ruling dated 17/10/2024 at paragraphs 111 and 112. It has been held previously in the case of **Benard Murage vs Finserve Africa Ltd and others (2015) EKLR** as follows. **“a party does not have to wait until a right or fundamental freedom has been violated or for a violation of the constitution before approaching the Court. He has a right to do so if there is a threat of violation or contravention of the Constitution”.** In the ruling this Court held as follows: **“Pending the creation of the wayleave ….. this Court is vested with the mandate to determine questions touching on the Petitioners right to property as per Article 40 of the Constitution”** This ruling is now more than 1½ years old and there has been no appeal or review that has been brought to my attention. The position taken by the Court remains the correct and official position. 1. While the general law of agency is that an agent acting on behalf of a disclosed principal is not personally liable and therefore ordinarily cannot be sued on contracts entered into for the principal, an agent can still be sued personally in certain exceptional circumstances especially when the agent acts outside the authority of the principal, where there is statutory or constitutional liability and where the agent acts as a principal if fact. See **City Council of Nairobi vs Wilfred Kamau Githua and others Civil Appeal No. 206 of 2008.** In this case, there is already a finding that the 2nd Respondent was not transparent in dealing with the Petitioner in regard to the ESIA report dated 14/2/2017. A party that violates the Constitution cannot escape a suit. Article 22 of the Constitution gives every person right to institute Court proceedings claiming that a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated or infringed, or is threatened. It is the 2nd Respondent who handed over the obsolete ESIA report dated 14/2/2017. It is the party actively involved in the violation. It is therefore properly joined in this petition. 1. Regarding the fifth issues, I find that the Respondents are not responsible for the auction, if any, of the Petitioners property. It was the obligation of the Petitioners to service its loans and debts and the Respondents had nothing to do with its failure to abide by the terms of the loan agreements. Had the Petitioners serviced their loans, their property would not been sold. It is difficult to see the connection between the unserviced loan and the compulsory acquisition of the suit land and the creation of wayleaves. 2. On the issuing of structural interdicts sought by the Petitioner in paragraph 40 (i) of the petition, I find that a good number of them especially those relating to immediate deposit of hefty sums are not tenable while the others will be taken care of if the Respondents comply with Article 10 of the Constitution and conduct a real, meaningful, inclusive and reasonable public participation and not one that is merely symbolic or perfunctory. The core essentials of a constitutionally compliant public participation is one where there is adequate notice to the public, where sufficient notice of the proposed action is received in good time. The information must be adequate and the public must be given adequate time to prepare responses. There must be exclusivity and representation of affected persons, marginalized groups, minorities, vulnerable groups and stakeholders must be directly contacted. The above are just a few of the essentials of public participation that the Court will accept as meaningful and reasonable. See the case of ***Robert N. Gakuru and others vs Governor Kiambu County and others 2014 eKLR.*** The burden was on the 2nd Respondent in this case to prove that the public participation allegedly conducted in this case meet the threshold in the Gakuru case (Supra). This did not happen because the ESIA submitted on 8/3/2024 has obsolete and unrelated to the issue at hand. 3. In conclusion and for the reasons already given I find that Petitioner has proved and is entitled to the following reliefs sought in paragraph 40 of the petition dated 9/4/2024. Reliefs **(a), (b), (c),(d)** and **(e).** The Petitioner will also get the costs for the petition. The rest of the prayers are dismissed. **It is so ordered.** **Dated, Signed** and **Delivered virtually at Murang’a this 18th day of May, 2026.** **M.N. GICHERU JUDGE.** **Delivered online in the presence of; -** **Court Assistant – Antony.** **Petitioner's Counsel – Mr Muigai holding brief.** **1st Respondent's Counsel – Mr Wachira.** **2nd Respondent's Counsel – Miss Gathimba.** **3rd Respondent's Counsel – Absent.** **4th Respondents Counsel –Absent.**