Why court stopped Ruto's Bungoma affordable housing project

President William Ruto, Speaker Moses Wetangula, Governor Kenneth Lusaka and Housing PS Charles Hinga at the Kanduyi housing project in Bungoma. [PCS]

President William Ruto's efforts to build affordable housing units in Bungoma have suffered a blow after the Environment and Land Court issued orders temporarily stopping the project over a disagreement with residents over its location.

A section of residents argues that the implementation of the project in the 36.95-acre airstrip is not only unlawful but is being done in open defiance of the court’s own earlier rulings.

In the orders delivered on January 7, 2026, Justice Enock Cherono certified a petition by Zacharia Baraza as urgent and granted a suite of temporary injunctions. These orders immediately suspend all construction, excavation, and development works on Land Parcel Bungoma Township/345, the site of the historic Kanduyi Airstrip.

The ruling paints a picture of a high-stakes conflict between a flagship government housing initiative and constitutional safeguards for public land, environmental protection, and community consultation.

At the heart of the case is Baraza’s claim, supported by his advocates Wamalwa and Echesa Company, that the Ministry of Lands, Public Works, Housing and Urban Development, the National Lands Commission (NLC), and the Attorney General are illegally converting protected public land without following due process.

The petitioner asserts that this new push for an "Affordable Housing Project" is happening despite a clear and subsisting court order issued by the same judge in April 2025.

In that earlier case, the court had barred the state from changing the use of the airstrip land or proceeding with a related "Smart City" tender, citing a lack of lawful degazettement and public participation.

“Despite the existence of the said court order, the Respondents have proceeded, permitted, and/or failed to prevent the illegal excavation and construction,” states a certificate of urgency filed by advocate Kennedy Echesa Lubengu.

The court documents reveal a saga of alleged procedural bypass. The land, long designated for aviation use and managed historically by the Kenya Airports Authority, is classified as public land held in trust for the people. For its use to be changed, the law requires a formal gazette process, comprehensive public participation, environmental impact assessments, and planning approvals.

Baraza’s petition argues that none of this has been done. He contends that the public has a “legitimate expectation” that the land remains an airstrip and that any change would involve transparent engagement with the community, as mandated by Articles 10 and 69 of the Constitution.

“The Respondents have prejudiced the public's legitimate expectation that they would comply with the provisions of the Constitution on public participation and stakeholder engagements,” notes Justice Cherono’s 2025 ruling, which is annexed to the new case.

The new application is framed as a desperate measure to stop irreversible harm. “Construction activities are ongoing and accelerating, posing a real and imminent risk that the land will be irreversibly altered, rendering the Petition and all pending applications nugatory,” Lubengu certifies.

Justice Cherono, in his latest orders, agreed with the urgency. He granted a temporary conservatory order to halt all works and issued a prohibitory injunction specifically restraining the respondents and the listed contractors—Sham General Contractors Limited and Shan General Merchants—from “converting” the land from an airstrip to any other use pending the hearing of the application.

The judge also directed the applicant to serve the papers immediately and gave the state and other parties 14 days to file their responses. The inter-partes hearing, where all sides will be heard, is set for February 3, 2026.

While acknowledging the right to accessible housing under Article 43, Baraza’s petition argues that this goal “cannot be pursued in a manner that violates other constitutional rights, disregards public land protections, ignores environmental safeguards, or defies lawful court orders.”

The named contractors, now legally enjoined in the case, are accused of being active participants in an allegedly unlawful process. The petition states they have “taken possession of the suit land and are actively carrying out excavation and construction” despite the land’s protected status.

The state agencies must now answer to the allegations of bypassing public consultation and ignoring a judicial injunction.