The Environment and Land Court in Thika has issued a temporary injunction halting the construction of a strategic road linking the Nairobi-Nakuru Highway (A104) and the Western Bypass in Gitaru, Kiambu County. The order, issued on Tuesday, November 4, 2025, follows a petition by local property owners who claim the ongoing works by the Kenya National Highways Authority (KeNHA) have rendered their homes and businesses inaccessible. This case highlights the persistent friction between national infrastructure development and the rights of individual landowners in Kenya.

The petitioners argue that KeNHA's project, which involves expanding an approximately 800-metre link road, proceeded without meaningful public participation. According to court documents, the residents state that the erection of jersey barriers and the design of the high-speed interchange have effectively cut off access to their properties. They contend that the failure to provide a service lane or a slip road not only poses a significant danger to them and other road users but has also drastically diminished the market value of their properties.

The court order expressly bars KeNHA, its contractors, agents, or representatives from any further development or construction on the road pending an inter-partes hearing. The residents told the court that while they initially tolerated minor disruptions from the expansion of the A104 highway, believing it was for the public good, the situation escalated in late September 2025 when KeNHA intensified construction of the interchange. The project is designed to accommodate high-speed traffic, particularly heavy commercial trucks diverting from the main highway to the Southern Bypass, exacerbating the access challenges for the petitioners.

A Pattern of Development Disputes

This injunction is the latest in a series of disputes pitting communities against state agencies over large-scale infrastructure projects. Similar conflicts have arisen in other parts of the country, often revolving around compulsory land acquisition, fair compensation, and the adequacy of public consultation. The National Land Commission (NLC) is frequently involved in acquiring land for such projects on behalf of agencies like KeNHA and the Kenya Urban Roads Authority (KURA). However, these processes are often fraught with delays and disagreements over valuation, leading to legal challenges that stall multi-billion shilling developments.

In Kiambu County, rapid urbanization and its proximity to Nairobi have made it a hotspot for major roadworks, including the Nairobi Western Bypass, which starts in Gitaru and terminates in Ruaka. While these projects are credited with spurring economic growth and easing traffic congestion, they have also led to numerous land disputes. Residents in areas like Kabete and Ruaka have previously raised alarms over being cut off from their properties and a lack of prior engagement from authorities.

Legal and Constitutional Questions

The petitioners in the Gitaru case have anchored their arguments in constitutional rights, accusing KeNHA of failing to conduct “meaningful and purposive public participation” before commencing the project. This requirement is a cornerstone of Kenya's 2010 Constitution, intended to ensure that development projects are implemented transparently and with the consent of affected communities. The Environment and Land Court, established under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution, has the specific jurisdiction to hear and determine such disputes relating to land use and the environment.

The court's intervention underscores its role as an arbiter between state development goals and citizen rights. The outcome of the inter-partes hearing will be closely watched by developers, government agencies, and communities across Kenya. It could set a precedent for how public participation is defined and implemented in future infrastructure projects, potentially forcing agencies like KeNHA to revise their engagement strategies to mitigate legal risks and ensure community buy-in before breaking ground. The case continues, with the next hearing scheduled to determine the future of the injunction and the road project itself.