https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10919

Matiko & 3 others (Suing as Officials of Kitengela Acacia Larger Neighbourhood Association (KALNA) and Oloika Community Resident Association (OCRA)) v Simongiko Valley Works Limited & 5 others (Constitutional Petition E010 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 10919 (KLR) (20 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10919 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kajiado Constitutional Petition E010 of 2024 JL Tamar, J July 20, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: MISUSE, EMBEZZLEMENT AND MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS BY THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF KAJIADO IN GRADING AND GRAVELLING OF ACACIA FEEDER ROAD IN OLOOSIRKON/SHOLINKE WARD AND IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLES 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 35, 42, 43, 48, 70, 73, 74, 75 AND 258 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 Between Joshua Matiko 1st Petitioner Chris Waithanji 2nd Petitioner Nelson Mutua 3rd Petitioner Fredrick Kingangir 4th Petitioner Suing as Officials of Kitengela Acacia Larger Neighbourhood Association (KALNA) and Oloika Community Resident Association (OCRA) and Simongiko Valley Works Limited 1st Respondent The County Government of Kajiado 2nd Respondent County Executive Committee Member Roads,Public Works, Transport and Energy 3rd Respondent The County Secretary, County Government of Kajiado 4th Respondent The Chief Officer Roads, County Government of Kajiado 5th Respondent Hon. Stephen Rais Kisemei Marush 6th Respondent Judgment A. Introduction 1.The Petitioners — Joshua Matiko, Chris Waithanji, Nelson Mutua and Fredrick Kingangir — are officials of the Kitengela Acacia Larger Neighbourhood Association (KALNA) and the Oloika Community Resident Association (OCRA), two registered community associations whose members are residents of and road users on the Acacia Feeder Road in Oloosirkon/Sholinke Ward, Kajiado East Sub-County, within Kajiado County. They filed this Petition dated 27th June 2024, accompanied by supporting affidavits sworn by each of the four Petitioners, seeking judgment against the Respondents jointly and severally as follows:a.A declaration that the Respondents' failure to maintain the Acacia Feeder Road to the required standards through constant and periodical grading, gravelling and rehabilitation infringes upon the Petitioners' right to a clean and healthy environment enshrined under Article 42 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.b.A declaration that the Respondents' failure to supply the Petitioners with the Bill of Quantities, Road Designs and related documents violates the Petitioners' rights under Article 35 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.c.An order compelling the Respondents to immediately and unconditionally resume and complete works on the Acacia Feeder Road strictly within the Bill of Quantities, Road Design and Budget envisaged under Contract Reference Number CGK/SCM/AWARDS/RFQ/RTPWE/16/2023-2024.d.An order compelling the 2nd to 5th Respondents to supply the Petitioners with copies of the Bill of Quantities, Road Design and any other related documents.e.An order prohibiting the 2nd to 5th Respondents from issuing any completion certificate, processing any payments or paying the 1st Respondent with respect to the said contract, subject to the fulfilment of prayer (c) above.f.Costs of the Petition. 2.The 2nd to 5th Respondents filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 16th January 2026 by one Johnson Opoyi, Sub-County Engineer, Kajiado East, together with written submissions dated 13th April 2026. The 1st and 6th Respondents did not file any response or submissions. The matter proceeded to hearing on the basis of the written pleadings and submissions filed. B. The Petition 3.The Petitioners aver that by an Award Letter dated 12th February 2024 bearing Reference Number CGK/SCM/AWARDS/RFQ/RTPWE/16/2023-2024, the 2nd Respondent awarded a contract to the 1st Respondent for the grading and gravelling of 4 kilometres of the Acacia Feeder Road in Oloosirkon/Sholinke Ward at a contract sum of Kshs. 3,971,492/= (Three Million Nine Hundred and Seventy-One Thousand, Four Hundred and Ninety-Two Shillings), inclusive of all applicable taxes. The contract period was six (6) months commencing from the date of site handover. 4.The Petitioners aver that the Acacia Feeder Road is the sole access road connecting residents of the Kitengela Acacia estate to Namanga Road and Kitengela town. Despite the award letter having been issued on 12th February 2024, the 1st Respondent only appeared on site in early June 2024, following constant interventions and demands by the Petitioners. 5.The Petitioners allege that when the 1st Respondent eventually commenced works, the quality of those works was grossly substandard. The contractor laid a thin layer of poor-quality dust masquerading as murram, with no compaction, over a stretch of barely 1 kilometre of the road's 4-kilometre scope. Stone chippings were haphazardly strewn over the road without any proper placement or compaction. The 1st Respondent thereafter abandoned the site and disappeared, insisting that the works had been completed. 6.The Petitioners further aver that the works were not supervised by any responsible officer of the 2nd to 5th Respondents but were instead directed by a Mr. Hillary Sean, a Ward Development Officer employed in the office of the 6th Respondent, who also procured the substandard murram that was used. The Petitioners allege that the 6th Respondent — the elected Member of County Assembly for the ward — was the true beneficiary of the contract, having used the 1st Respondent as a vehicle to circumvent legal prohibitions against such conflict of interest, contrary to Section 24 of the Public Officers Ethics Act, No. 4 of 2003. 7.The Petitioners allege that the Acacia Feeder Road has a history of contractors being awarded contracts, collecting public funds and issuing false completion certificates without setting foot on the road, citing the financial year 2021/22 as a precedent. They further allege that internal professional engineers within KALNA assessed the value of the actual works done by the 1st Respondent at no more than Kshs. 1,230,400/= — a fraction of the contract sum of Kshs. 3,971,492/=. 8.On the question of access to information, the Petitioners state that they made repeated written requests to the Respondents for the Bill of Quantities, Road Design, Tender Minutes, Award Letter and Contract Agreement relating to the project. Those requests were ignored. The Petitioners aver that these are public documents that ought to be made available under Article 35 of the Constitution and the Access to Information Act, No. 31 of 2016. 9.The Petitioners are apprehensive that the 2nd to 5th Respondents will process payment to the 1st Respondent against a fraudulent completion certificate, and they seek the intervention of this Court to forestall that outcome and to vindicate their constitutional rights. C. The Respondents' Case 10.The 2nd to 5th Respondents, through the Replying Affidavit of Johnson Opoyi and their written submissions, oppose the Petition on four grounds. First, they contend that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the Petition, urging that matters arising under Article 42 of the Constitution fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (ELC) by virtue of Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011 (the ELC Act). Second, they contend that the Petition does not meet the threshold of precision and specificity required of constitutional petitions as established in Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] eKLR. Third, they contend that the procurement process was conducted in an open, fair and transparent manner in accordance with the Constitution and the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, No. 33 of 2015 (PPADA), that the 1st Respondent was awarded the contract on merit following a competitive Request for Quotation (RFQ) process, and that upon completion of the works the County Engineer inspected and certified the road and issued a Completion Certificate. Fourth, they contend that the question of access to documents has been overtaken by events, as the Bill of Quantities and related documents were annexed to the Replying Affidavit filed on 16th January 2026. 11.The 1st and 6th Respondents filed no response and made no appearance. D. Submissions 12.The Petitioners filed written submissions dated 13th February 2026. They reiterated the background facts and identified the following issues for determination: (a) whether the Respondents' failure to maintain the Acacia Feeder Road to the required standards infringes Article 42; (b) whether the failure to supply procurement documents violates Article 35; (c) whether the Respondents have breached their public duty; and (d) whether costs ought to be awarded. In respect of Article 42, the Petitioners rely on the terms of that article and Article 70, which provides an enforcement mechanism for environmental rights. In respect of Article 35, the Petitioners rely on the Access to Information Act, 2016 and the decision in Khalifa & another v Principal Secretary, Ministry of Transport & 4 others; Katiba Institute & another (Interested Parties) [2022] KEHC 368 (KLR). On the question of public duty, the Petitioners submit that the Respondents' failure to administer the contract lawfully violates Articles 10, 201 and 232 of the Constitution and the PPADA. 13.The 2nd to 5th Respondents in their submissions argue that the Petition is incompetent, having failed the precision threshold, and that the Petitioners conflate contractual dissatisfaction with constitutional violations. They urge the Court to find that no constitutional rights have been violated and to dismiss the Petition with costs. D. Analysis and Determination of the CourtHaving considered all the pleadings, the affidavit evidence on record and the written submissions of the parties, I identify the following issues for the determination;i.Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this Petition.ii.Whether the Petition meets the threshold of a constitutional petition.iii.Whether the Petitioners' right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 42 of the Constitution has been violated.iv.Whether the Petitioners' right to access to information under Article 35 of the Constitution has been violated.v.Whether the Respondents have breached their public duty under Articles 10, 201, 227 and 232 of the Constitution as read with the PPADA.vi.What reliefs, if any, the Petitioners are entitled to, including on costs. Issue 1 — Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this Petition 14.The 2nd to 5th Respondents contends that this Court is divested of jurisdiction to hear matters premised on Article 42 of the Constitution, urging that such matters fall within the exclusive purview of the Environment and Land Court by virtue of Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the ELC Act. 15.The starting point is Article 165(3)(b) of the Constitution, which vests this Court with jurisdiction to determine questions whether a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated, infringed or threatened. Article 165(3) is subject to Article 165(5), which provides that the High Court shall not have jurisdiction in respect of matters falling within the jurisdiction of the courts contemplated in Article 162(2). 16.The ELC Act at Section 13(3) expressly provides that nothing in the Act shall preclude the ELC from hearing and determining applications for redress of a denial, violation or infringement of, or threat to, rights or fundamental freedoms relating to a clean and healthy environment under Articles 42, 69 and 70 of the Constitution. This provision is permissive in form and does not purport to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the ELC over constitutional enforcement of Article 42. 17.The distinction between the status of a court and its jurisdiction is fundamental: the Supreme Court in Republic v Karisa Chengo & 2 others [2017] KESC 15 (KLR) unequivocally held that although the High Court, the ELC and the ELRC are courts of equal hierarchical status, they are different and autonomous courts exercising different and distinct jurisdictions, each court's jurisdiction being confined to the statutory mandate conferred upon it by Parliament. Status and jurisdiction are not coterminous. 18.Parity of status does not expand the ELC's jurisdiction beyond the sphere prescribed in Section 13 of the ELC Act, nor does it oust the High Court's general constitutional jurisdiction under Article 165(3)(b) over composite Bill of Rights claims. 19.The question of which court has jurisdiction over a dispute that touches on both environmental rights and other constitutional provisions is resolved by examining the predominant purpose of the claim. In Suzanne Achieng Butler & 4 others v Redhill Heights Investments Limited & another [2016] KEHC 1313 (KLR), the High Court held that, when faced with a controversy whether a particular case is a dispute about land, the courts utilize the Predominant Purpose Test: jurisdiction lies with the ELC if the transaction or dispute is predominantly about land or the environment, but jurisdiction remains with the High Court if the predominant purpose is something other than land — for instance, the quality of services, the accountability of public officers, or the enforcement of non-environmental constitutional rights. The gravamen of the dispute, the nature of the reliefs sought, and the constitutional provisions invoked are all material in that assessment. This approach was reaffirmed most recently in Kutch Kibwezi Farm Ltd v Water Resources Authority (WRA) & another [2026] KEHC 9515 (KLR), where the High Court applied the Predominant Purpose Test and the Chengo doctrine to resolve a competing jurisdiction point between the High Court and the ELC. 20.Applying that test to the present Petition, the predominant purpose of this litigation is not the protection of the environment per se, but the enforcement of constitutional accountability, transparency and integrity obligations against public officers and a county government. The core claims are: that public procurement funds were misapplied or fraudulently applied (Articles 10, 201, 227 and 232); that information was unlawfully withheld from citizens (Article 35); and that elected and appointed officials acted in conflict of interest (Articles 73, 74 and 75). The Article 42 claim — that the resulting condition of the road is hazardous to the health of road users — is consequential to, and flows from, that primary accountability failure. The dispute is not about the environment, use, occupation or title to land in any sense contemplated by Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution. Article 42 is invoked, but it forms one strand of a composite constitutional petition that is predominantly about public accountability and misuse of public resources. The High Court is the appropriate forum for such composite constitutional challenges. 21.The present Petition does not concern a dispute about title to, use of, or occupation of land, nor does it raise a purely environmental management complaint that would engage the ELC's sui generis jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b). As the Supreme Court explained in Chengo (supra), the three courts — the High Court, the ELC and the ELRC — exercise different and distinct jurisdictions; Article 165(5) precludes the High Court from entertaining matters reserved for the ELC, and, by the same logic, the ELC cannot hear matters reserved to the High Court. The enforcement of the Bill of Rights, including Articles 10, 35, 73, 74 and 75, falls squarely within the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 165(3)(b). The Petition invokes these provisions as its primary constitutional foundations, with Article 42 playing a supporting and consequential role. A case whose principal claims go to public accountability, integrity and access to information cannot be characterized as an ELC matter merely because one of its sub-claims’ touches on the environmental consequences of a failed road contract. 22.I accordingly find that this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this Petition. The preliminary objection of the 2nd to 5th Respondents on jurisdiction is dismissed. Issue 2 — Whether the Petition meets the threshold of a constitutional petition 23.The 2nd to 5th Respondents raises the seminal authority of Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] eKLR, in which the Court held that a person seeking redress from the High Court on a matter involving a reference to the Constitution must set out with a reasonable degree of precision that of which they complain, the provisions said to be infringed, and the manner in which they are alleged to be infringed. This principle was endorsed and amplified by the Court of Appeal in Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others [2013] KECA 445 (KLR) and has been consistently applied by the courts in assessing the competency of constitutional petitions. 24.The respondents contend that the Petitioners have merely made omnibus constitutional averments without linking specific acts or omissions of specific Respondents to specific constitutional violations. 25.I have examined the Petition carefully and find that this argument is not sustainable. The Petition identifies specific parties (the 1st Respondent as the contractor and the 2nd to 5th Respondents as the procuring entity and its officers), specific acts and omissions (the abandonment of works after grading barely 1 kilometre of a 4-kilometre scope, the use of substandard murram, the refusal to supply the Bill of Quantities and Road Design, and the role of the 6th Respondent's officer in supervising and procuring materials for a contract not awarded to his employer), and specific constitutional provisions alleged to have been violated, with supporting affidavit evidence and accompanying photographs. 26.The Petitioners have set out particulars of breach under each constitutional provision they invoke. They have satisfied the nexus required between the aggrieved party, the provisions of the Constitution alleged to have been contravened, and the manifestation of that contravention, as described by the Supreme Court in Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others v Royal Media Services Limited & 5 others [2014] KESC 14 (KLR). 27.While the Petition does cite several constitutional provisions that may be tangential or that overlap with others, such drafting imprecision does not, of itself, render the Petition incompetent. The Court in the more recent decision of Katiba Institute v Attorney General & 2 others [2026] KEHC 258 (KLR) has reaffirmed that the Anarita threshold does not require perfection but rather sufficient precision to give fair notice to the Respondents and to enable the Court to adjudicate the issues with clarity. 28.I am satisfied that the Petition is competent and properly placed before this Court. Issue 3 — Whether the Petitioners' right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 42 has been violated 29.Article 42 of the Constitution guarantees every person the right to a clean and healthy environment, which includes the right to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations through legislative and other measures contemplated in Article 69. Article 70(1) provides that any person who alleges that this right has been, is being or is likely to be denied, violated, infringed or threatened may apply to a court for redress. The right is enforceable by individuals, community associations and any person acting in the public interest. 30.The Petitioners have placed before this Court uncontroverted photographic evidence depicting the condition of the Acacia Feeder Road following the 1st Respondent's works: photographs showing loose stone chippings strewn haphazardly across the road surface without compaction (Exhibit JM-012); photographs of punctured tyres and damaged vehicles resulting from the loose chippings (Exhibit JM-015); photographs of school children walking through the projectile-laden road surface (Exhibit JM-013); and photographs of vehicles — including school buses — stranded on sections of the road after rain, attributable to the return of cotton soil without adequate murram cover (Exhibit JM-016). Additionally, a Scoping Opinion from professional engineers within KALNA (Exhibit JM-003) assessed the value of the actual works done at no more than Kshs. 1,230,400/= against a contract value of Kshs. 3,971,492/=. 31.The 2nd to 5th Respondents relies principally on the Completion Certificate (Exhibit JO-6) issued by the County Engineer, Roads, Transport and Energy, and the Replying Affidavit of Johnson Opoyi deposing that the road was inspected and found to meet the required standards. However, the Completion Certificate is undated as to actual date of completion of works, and the scope of works certified — "site clearance, earth work excavation, sub base stabilization, grading and gravelling" — is contradicted by the photographic and engineer's evidence that none of those items were executed to specification over the full 4-kilometre scope. A completion certificate does not, in and of itself, constitute conclusive proof of satisfactory execution of works where there is credible evidence to the contrary. 32.The Court in Kibui, Michael & 2 others v Impressa Construzioni Giuseppe Maltauro SPA & 2 others (Constitutional Petition 1 of 2012) [2019] KEELC 4468 (KLR) affirmed the expansive nature of the Article 42 right and held that violations could be established by demonstrating tangible adverse environmental effects on petitioners and their community. That is precisely what the Petitioners have demonstrated here: the abandonment of works midway through the contracted scope, the use of substandard materials, the hazardous condition of the road surface for pedestrians, cyclists, school children and motorists, and the generation of dust and projectile hazards that directly impinge on the health and safety of road users. 33.The Fourth Schedule to the Constitution, Part 2, paragraph 4 assigns county transport — including county roads — to county governments. The 2nd Respondent therefore bears primary constitutional responsibility for the proper execution of this road maintenance contract. The failure to ensure that public funds were applied to execute the contracted works to specification, resulting in the road being left in a worse condition than before the works commenced, constitutes an omission that violates the Petitioners' right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 42, as read with Article 70, of the Constitution. 34.I accordingly find that the right to a clean and healthy environment of the Petitioners under Article 42 of the Constitution has been violated by the omissions of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents. Issue 4 — Whether the Petitioners' right to access to information under Article 35 has been violated 35.Article 35(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right of access to information held by the State. Article 35(3) imposes on the State a corresponding duty to publish and publicise important information affecting the nation. The Access to Information Act, No. 31 of 2016, enacted to give effect to Article 35, mandates public entities at Section 5 to avail information expeditiously, at affordable cost and in a manner that is accessible. 36.The Petitioners aver that they made repeated written requests to the Respondents for the Bill of Quantities, the Road Design, the Tender Minutes, the Award Letter and the Contract Agreement. These requests were ignored and no response was given. The Bill of Quantities was only provided when it was annexed to the 2nd to 5th Respondents' Replying Affidavit filed on 16th January 2026 — over a year and a half after the Petition was filed and only in the context of these proceedings. 37.The 2nd to 5th Respondents contends in their submissions that this particular issue is now moot because the documents have since been supplied. This Court does not accept that submission. A constitutional violation is not expunged by belated compliance under the compulsion of litigation. The question is whether, at the time the requests were made and refused, the Petitioners' constitutional right under Article 35 was infringed. On the evidence before this Court, it plainly was. 38.Procurement documents — including Bills of Quantities, Tender Evaluation Reports, Award Letters and Contract Agreements — are public records. They record the deployment of public resources through a process governed by public law. The Access to Information (General) Regulations, 2023, Legal Notice No. 57 of 2023, expressly include at Regulation 4(e) procurement records including pre-qualified suppliers and awarded tenders among the categories of information that public entities are required to disseminate. There is no lawful basis for the 2nd to 5th Respondents to have withheld these documents from members of the public for the extended period they did. 39.In Khalifa & another v Principal Secretary, Ministry of Transport & 4 others; Katiba Institute & another (Interested Parties) [2022] KEHC 368 (KLR), the High Court held that the failure by the Respondents to provide information sought under Article 35(1)(a) and to publicize information in accordance with Article 35(3) constituted a violation of the right of access to information, and issued an order compelling the Respondents to forthwith provide the information sought. That decision affirms both the content of the right and the mandatory nature of the State's corresponding obligation. 40.The facts of this case are on all fours with that decision. The 2nd to 5th Respondents has offered no lawful justification for the refusal to provide the requested procurement documents over the period from June 2024 to January 2026. The refusal was not premised on any of the permitted limitations under Section 6 of the Access to Information Act. In the circumstances, I find that the 2nd to 5th Respondents violated the Petitioners' right to access to information under Article 35(1)(a) and (3) of the Constitution. Issue 5 — Whether the Respondents have breached their public duty under Articles 10, 201, 227 and 232 of the Constitution as read with the PPADA 41.Article 10 of the Constitution establishes the national values and principles of governance, including good governance, integrity, transparency and accountability, and requires all State organs and State officers to apply those values in all their decisions and actions. Article 201 mandates openness and accountability in the management of public finances, including the requirement that public money is used in a prudent and responsible manner. Article 227(1) requires that when a State organ contracts for goods or services, it shall do so in accordance with a system that is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective. 42.The PPADA at Section 151 requires procuring entities to establish a Project Implementation Team to make regular project reports and oversee the execution of contracts. Section 139 imposes specific contract administration obligations, including supervision of the contractor's works. Section 87 provides for a formal notification of award, and the contract entered into pursuant thereto creates binding obligations on both the contractor and the procuring entity. 43.The evidence on record reveals the following: the 1st Respondent executed at most 1 kilometre of the contracted 4-kilometre scope; the murram used was of inferior quality; there was no meaningful compaction of the road surface; and the 6th Respondent's Ward Development Officer effectively usurped the supervisory role that ought to have been exercised by the 2nd to 5th Respondents' technical officers. The County Engineer nonetheless issued a Completion Certificate certifying the road as complete. 44.A Completion Certificate issued in respect of works that are manifestly incomplete and substandard — in a context where photographic evidence, community petitions and a professional scoping opinion all record the contrary — is not merely an administrative irregularity. It represents a failure of accountability that strikes at the core of the public duties imposed by Articles 10, 201 and 232 of the Constitution and the PPADA. The certification of incomplete works as complete, enabling the disbursement of public funds for services not rendered to specification, is precisely the kind of conduct that Articles 73, 74 and 75 of the Constitution render inconsistent with holding public office. 45.Regarding the 6th Respondent, the uncontroverted evidence is that his employee, Mr. Hillary Sean, procured the murram and supervised the implementation of a contract that was formally awarded to the 1st Respondent. This raises a serious prima facie case of a conflict-of-interest contrary to Article 75(1)(d) of the Constitution and Section 24 of the Public Officers Ethics Act. The 6th Respondent filed no response to refute these averments. 46.I find that the 2nd to 5th Respondents breached their public duty under Articles 10, 201, 227 and 232 of the Constitution as read with the PPADA by failing to supervise the implementation of the contract, by certifying incomplete works as complete, and by processing or facilitating the processing of payments for services not rendered to specification. I also find that the 6th Respondent's conduct, as deposed to in the uncontroverted affidavit of Joshua Matiko, is inconsistent with the obligations imposed on him by Article 75 of the Constitution and Section 24 of the Public Officers Ethics Act. Issue 6 — Reliefs and Costs 47.Having found that the constitutional rights of the Petitioners have been violated as set out above, I now turn to the appropriate reliefs. Article 23(3) of the Constitution empowers this Court to grant appropriate relief in proceedings under Article 22, including a declaration of rights, an injunction, a conservatory order, an order of mandamus or any other appropriate order. 48.On the prayer for declaratory relief, the Petitioners have established violations of both Article 42 and Article 35. Declarations are merited. 49.On the prayer for mandamus, the Petitioners seek an order compelling the Respondents to complete the grading and gravelling works in accordance with the Bill of Quantities and contract specifications. The nature of the relief sought requires careful calibration. The Completion Certificate has been issued. The 2nd to 5th Respondents maintains that the contract has been fully performed. This Court is not a contract administrator and cannot substitute its technical judgment for that of the parties' engineers on the specific scope of defects. However, this Court can, and does, direct that the road be properly inspected and any defects remedied in accordance with the contractual specifications. 50.On the prayer to prohibit payment, the evidence shows that a Completion Certificate has already been issued and that the contract sum may already have been processed. To the extent that such payments have been made on the basis of a certificate that does not accurately reflect the works done, the proper avenue for recovery lies through the relevant accountability mechanisms, including referral to the Controller of Budget, the County Public Accounts and Investments Committee, and, where criminal conduct is disclosed, to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of Criminal Investigations. This Court notes the evidence of apparent collusion and shall make a referral order accordingly. 51.On damages, the primary purpose of constitutional relief is vindication of rights and prevention of future violations, as affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Gitobu Imanyara & 2 others v Attorney General Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2014 [2016] eKLR. The Petitioners have suffered real harm: their road has been left in a condition worse than before the contract was awarded; they have been exposed to dust and projectile hazards; and school children and pedestrians have been placed at risk. I am persuaded that an award of general damages is appropriate to each Petitioner to reflect the infringement of their constitutional rights under Articles 35 and 42. 52.On the question of costs, the general rule is that costs follow the event. The Petitioners were compelled to approach this Court to enforce rights that should have been respected by the Respondents without litigation. The Petitioners ought to be awarded their costs. E. Disposition 53.Accordingly, this Court makes the following orders:a.A declaration is hereby issued that the failure by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents to execute the Acacia Feeder Road grading and gravelling contract to the required standards, resulting in the road being left in a hazardous and dilapidated condition, infringes and continues to infringe the Petitioners' right to a clean and healthy environment guaranteed under Article 42 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.b.A declaration is hereby issued that the failure by the 2nd to 5th Respondents to supply the Petitioners with the Bill of Quantities, Road Designs and related documents pursuant to requests made under Article 35(1)(a) of the Constitution, for the period from June 2024 to January 2026 and in the absence of any lawful justification, violated the Petitioners' right to access to information under Article 35 of the Constitution.c.An order of mandamus is hereby issued directing the 2nd Respondent (County Government of Kajiado) to, within sixty (60) days of the date of this judgment, cause a joint inspection of the Acacia Feeder Road in Oloosirkon/Sholinke Ward to be conducted by independent engineers appointed by this Court and/or agreed upon by the parties, to assess the scope and quality of works actually executed under Contract Reference CGK/SCM/AWARDS/RFQ/RTPWE/16/2023-2024, and to present to this Court a report of the findings of that inspection within ninety (90) days of this judgment, together with a plan to remedy any identified defects within the contractual Bill of Quantities.d.The 2nd Respondent is directed to forthwith make available to the Petitioners — at no cost — all procurement records relating to Contract Reference CGK/SCM/AWARDS/RFQ/RTPWE/16/2023-2024, including the complete Bill of Quantities, the Road Design, the Tender Evaluation Report, the Form of Agreement, the Completion Certificate and any payment records pertaining to the said contract.e.This Court hereby directs the Deputy Registrar of the High Court at Kajiado to forward a certified copy of this judgment and the supporting affidavits filed herein, including Exhibits JM-001 to JM-017, to the Director of Criminal Investigations, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Controller of Budget, and the County Assembly of Kajiado, for their attention and such action as they may deem appropriate in respect of the conduct of the 1st and 6th Respondents as described in the pleadings.f.General damages of Kenya Shillings One Hundred and Fifty Thousand (Kshs. 150,000/=) each are awarded to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Petitioners for the violation of their rights under Articles 35 and 42 of the Constitution, payable by the 2nd Respondent.g.The costs of this Petition are awarded to the Petitioners and are assessed at Kenya Shillings Three Hundred Thousand (Kshs. 300,000/=), payable by the 2nd Respondent.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT GARISSA VIRTUALLY THIS 20TH DAY OF JULY 2026.......................................J.T LOLWATANJUDGE