Court Greenlights Petition to Halt Mau Mau Road Project Through Aberdare National Park

Nyeri, Kenya — March 13, 2025

In a landmark ruling delivered by the Environment and Land Court sitting in Nyeri, environmental advocates have scored a major legal victory in their bid to protect the Aberdare National Park and Forest Reserve from infrastructure development. The Court dismissed a preliminary objection raised by the Kenya National Highways Authority (KeNHA), affirming that the court has jurisdiction to hear the constitutional and environmental claims brought against the controversial Mau Mau Road project.

The petition, spearheaded by the East African Wildlife Society alongside Kenya Forest Working Group, Africa Centre for Peace and Human Rights, and Lempa Suyianka, seeks to block the construction of a 52-kilometre road linking Ihithe to Ndunyu Njeru. The planned route cuts directly through the ecologically sensitive Aberdare ecosystem, which hosts critical water towers, endangered species, and rich biodiversity.

The petitioners argue that the road would destroy up to 25 kilometres of closed-canopy forest, violate environmental rights enshrined in the Constitution, and threaten rare and endangered wildlife. They also challenged the impartiality of Norken International Ltd, the consultancy firm behind the project’s Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA), citing a conflict of interest.

KeNHA, supported by the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), opposed the petition, claiming the Environment and Land Court lacked jurisdiction and that the matter should have been taken to the National Environment Tribunal (NET) under the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA). They also argued the project was a flagship of Vision 2030 and had followed due legal procedures, including public participation and EIA licensing.

However, the Court, composed of Justices L. N. Gacheru, B. M. Eboso, and J. O. Olola, ruled that the petition raises substantial constitutional issues. These include the right to a clean and healthy environment, the protection of cultural heritage, and biodiversity conservation—issues that fall squarely within the court’s mandate under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act.

Citing the Supreme Court’s precedent in Nicholus Abidha v Attorney General & Others, the judges reiterated that environmental constitutional claims cannot be limited to the narrow dispute mechanisms of NET, especially where fundamental rights are in question.

“The petition raises questions relating to the violation of Articles 10, 11, 42, 47, and 69 of the Constitution. These are not issues that can be addressed by NET. It is the Environment and Land Court which has jurisdiction,” the judges concluded.

The ruling clears the way for full proceedings on the merits of the petition. If successful, the case could set a powerful precedent on the limits of infrastructure development in ecologically sensitive areas and the role of constitutional courts in environmental protection.

Environmental groups hailed the decision as a win for biodiversity, constitutional rights, and public interest litigation. KeNHA and NEMA are now expected to defend the road project in substantive hearings yet to be scheduled.