4,642 Kenyans move to court to stop development in Nairobi National Park

More than 4,600 Kenyans have moved to court to halt construction works inside Nairobi National Park citing threats to wildlife sanctuary and violation of the constitution.

The petition, filed before the Environment and Land Court in Kajiado under the Save Nairobi National Park (SaveNNP), seeks to stop the relocation of the Nairobi Animal Orphanage to a new site inside the park.

The 4,642 petitioners also want the court to stop the construction of a proposed 1,300-vehicle parking facility, an access road and a pedestrian bridge linking the project to the Bomas International Convention Centre (BICC).

The petitioners argue that the developments are going on without mandatory statutory approvals, adequate public participation or parliamentary approval required for any alteration of land within a gazette national park.

In their prayers before the court; the petitioners are seeking permanent orders stopping all construction activities related to the relocated animal orphanage, parking facility, access road and pedestrian bridge.

They also want the court to declare the project unconstitutional and unlawful, quash NEMA's environmental license, compel restoration of any degraded sections of the park and prohibit future development unless all constitutional and statutory requirements are fully complied with.

“The proposed 1,300-vehicle parking facility on approximately 8 acres of open grassland within Nairobi National Park introduces a suite of irreversible, long-term ecological impacts that the EIA wholly fails to assess,” he added.

They have sued the Kenya Wildlife Service(KWS), the National Environment Management Authority (NeMA), the Cabinet Secretaries for Tourism and wildlife and Environment, the Kenya Forest Service (KFS), Bomas of Kenya Limited, the Nairobi County government and the Attorney General.

Friends of Nairobi National Park has been listed as an interested party.

In their prayers before the court; the petitioners are seeking permanent orders stopping all construction activities related to the relocated animal orphanage, parking facility, access road and pedestrian bridge.

They also want the court to declare the project unconstitutional and unlawful, quash NEMA's environmental license, compel restoration of any degraded sections of the park and prohibit future development unless all constitutional and statutory requirements are fully complied with.

In their petition, the citizens argue that Nairobi National Park is not just a protected area, but a globally unique ecosystem deserving the highest level of legal protection.

They stated that, gazetted in 1946 as Kenya’ first National Park, the 117-square-kilometer sanctuary is the only fully protected national park located within a capital city.

The further argue that the park is also a designated rhino sanctuary, an internationally recognized Important Bird and Biodiversity Area, and a critical refuge for wildlife within the wider Athi-Kapiti ecosystem in Kajiado.

The petitioners argue that the proposed relocation of the Nairobi Animal Orphanage would occupy a significantly larger area than the current facility and introduce permanent infrastructure into an ecologically sensitive part of the park.

According to the court documents, the project includes an electric perimeter fence, a pedestrian bridge across Lang’ata road and a parking area capable of accommodating 1,300 vehicles, directly linked to the BICC.

“The proposed 1,300-vehicle parking facility on approximately 8 acres of open grassland within Nairobi National Park introduces a suite of irreversible, long-term ecological impacts that the EIA wholly fails to assess,” reads the petition.

They stated that the pedestrian bridge is a separate and distinct infrastructure project from the orphanage, and that it requires its own structural design approval, and connects two distinct parcels of land with different legal status.

“There is no evidence that this bridge has its own EIA. Its inclusion within the scope of the orphanage EIA, without a separate EIA.”

“That confirms that the dominant purpose of the development is to serve the BICC, which the EIA does not assess, or demonstrates that a physically and legally distinct project has been absorbed into the orphanage EIA to avoid separate regulatory scrutiny,” the petition reads.

The petition claims official project documents contain numerous inconsistencies, including figures on the project’s size, cost, fencing length and the actual acreage to be occupied.

While some documents describe the site as covering 26 acres, others indicate 64 acres, 76.6 acres or nearly 90 acres. The estimated project cost is also said to vary widely across official documents.

The petitioners argue that these contradictions undermine the credibility of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) upon which NeMA issued the project license in December 2025.

They further claim that the EIA report and licenses were not made available to the public until more than two months after approval, despite repeated requests from conservation groups, seeking information and consultations.

According to the petition, construction activities, including tree felling, excavation, and land clearing began in March 2026 before several mandatory approvals required under EIA license had been obtained.

The petition states that approvals relating to planning, building regulations, traffic management, and affluent discharge had not been secured before comment commenced.

The conservationists argue that the disputed site contains indigenous, highland dry forest, grassland, seasonal wetlands and wildlife habitat, supporting species, such as lions, leopards, black rhinoceroses, cheetahs, hyenas and hundreds of birds’ species.

They rejected assertions by KWS that the project is situated only on open grassland, arguing that grasslands and Forest Glades are integral parts of the park's ecological system.

They further stated that these transition habitats provide feeding grounds, breeding areas and movement corridors for wildlife and form the foundation of the park’s food chain.

The petition warns that converting approximately eight acres into a parking facility would permanently eliminate wildlife habitat, while introducing increased noise, lighting, pollution, and human activity into one of the park’s most sensitive areas.

It further argues that oil spills, fuel leaks, and stormwater runoff from hundreds of vehicles could contaminate nearby wetlands, and streams draining into the Mokoyiet River, with consequences for aquatic ecosystems and wildlife.

“1,300 vehicles generate engine noise, headlight illumination, exhaust and human activity, particularly during evening and early-morning periods when large mammals are most active,” they argued in court documents.

The petition also questions the justification for locating such extensive parking infrastructure inside a national park, arguing that the close integration with the BICC suggests the project primarily serves commercial rather than conservation purposes.

Beyond the ecological concerns, the petition raises constitutional questions over whether any part of the national park can legally be converted for development without a resolution of the National Assembly.

The petitioners argue that the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act and the Forest Conservation and Management Act require parliamentary approval, before land within a national park or public forest can be excised, varied or converted to another use.

They further contend that the development violates the Nairobi National Park Management plan 2020-2030, which designates the affected area as a Low-Use Zone where permanent development, and new roads are prohibited.

The Management Plan, they argue, only contemplated a modest expansion of the existing orphanage rather than construction of an entirely new facility with extensive supporting infrastructure.

The petition also accuses the respondents of failing to conduct adequate public participation and ignoring requests for information from conservation stakeholders, including Friends of Nairobi National Park, which is recognised as a key stakeholder under the park's management plan.

The petitioners argue that the approval process breached constitutional guarantees of public participation, access to information, fair administrative action and the right to a clean and healthy environment.

They further claim that Kenya has international obligations to protect biodiversity under treaties including the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, CITES and the Paris Agreement, all of which they argue are undermined by the proposed development.

The petitioners argue that every day construction continues results in irreversible environmental damage and urge the court to intervene before one of Kenya's most iconic conservation areas suffers permanent loss.

“The cost of stopping at this point is necessarily less than the cost of continuing to build an unlawful structure that will ultimately have to be removed,” reads the petition.

They further argue that the cost of the environmental harm caused by completing the development as opposed to the permanent loss of irreplaceable wildlife habitat is immeasurably significant.