Court finds Nairobi slums evictions were illegal, orders compensation

There was drama at the Syokimau area in Mavoko, Machakos County after a section of squatters claiming a prime piece of land in the area, attempted to stop a private developer from constructing a perimeter fence. [Peterson Githaiga, Standard]

The High Court has declared the forced eviction and demolition of houses in several Nairobi slums earlier this year illegal and unconstitutional.

The affected areas, including Mathare, Gwa Kairu, Mukuru Kwa Ruben, and Kiamaiko slums, were targeted by a government directive to remove residents due to the threat of flooding.

In a judgment delivered by Justice Ann Mogeni, the court ordered that the residents displaced by the evictions be compensated by the government for the losses they suffered.

The judge affirmed that the government’s actions violated the constitutional rights of the residents.

“The failure to issue a proper notice of eviction to the petitioners, without adequate and reasonable time, violated their rights as guaranteed by Articles 47 and 35 of the Constitution and is illegal and unprocedural,” Justice Mogeni ruled.

While directing the State to compensate the victims, the judge noted that the government cannot treat its citizens like “garbage.”

Safer ground

“In this case, the government was well aware that its citizens had settled in these areas. Instead of relocating them to safer ground humanely, it chose to treat them like ‘garbage’ and literally mow them out of their homes in the most inhumane manner,” Judge Mogeni stated.

Adding: “The government must understand that it owes a duty to the citizens of Kenya to treat them with dignity and respect.

‘‘Despite not having a formal eviction law, Kenya has signed onto international conventions that govern how evictions should be carried out.”

Earlier this year, the government issued an emergency directive forcing residents to vacate their homes, claiming that they had illegally occupied riparian land.

The evictions, which took place in April and May, occurred amid one of Kenya’s most severe rainy seasons. The resulting floods killed more than 200 people and displaced more than 200,000 individuals, causing widespread destruction of infrastructure and livelihoods.

On April 30, 2024, the State ordered residents of flood-prone and riparian areas in Nairobi, including the affected slums, to vacate their homes within 48 hours.

However, according to the petitioners, supported by the legal aid group, Sheria Mtaani, the government failed to provide alternative shelter for the displaced families, leaving them homeless and vulnerable to the harsh weather conditions.

The petitioners argued that the evictions were carried out without regard for their dignity, safety, or security.

They further contended that the forced evictions led to irreparable losses, including the destruction of personal property, and tragically, the deaths of two residents.

A nine-year-old child was killed when a hole collapsed during the evictions in Mukuru Kwa Ruben, and a 17-year-old student was run over by a bulldozer during the demolitions.

The petitioners also highlighted the discriminatory nature of the evictions, alleging that they disproportionately affected low-income areas.

They pointed out that more affluent areas such as Karen, Gigiri, Syokimau, and Runda, which were also impacted by the floods, were not subjected to similar eviction orders.

Selective evictions

The petitioners contended that such arbitrary and selective evictions were unfair and unjust, further exacerbating their plight.

The government’s response to the crisis was also deemed inadequate, particularly in addressing the basic needs of the displaced people, such as shelter, food, clean water, and medical care.

The court noted that the forced evictions occurred without adequate notice or consultation, violating the constitutional rights of the residents, including their right to dignity (Article 28), freedom and security of the person (Article 29), privacy (Article 31), and property (Article 40).

Justice Mogeni noted that evictions, especially those involving vulnerable groups like children, the elderly, and people with disabilities, must be carried out humanely and with due consideration for their rights and well-being.

In its judgment, the court found that the government’s actions were not only a violation of the petitioners’ rights but also amounted to cruel and inhuman treatment.

The court also recognised that some of the affected residents had lived in these areas for extended periods, and therefore, a 24-hour eviction notice was both unreasonable and inadequate.

It further ruled that the petitioners were not consulted prior to the eviction and demolition orders, which violated their right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution.

In addition to addressing the immediate human rights violations, the court also considered the broader impact on children’s education. Schools within the affected areas were also demolished, leaving children without a place to continue their studies.

This, too, was found to be a violation of their right to education under Article 53 of the Constitution. The court ruled that the government failed to take adequate action to protect the rights of vulnerable groups, particularly children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities, who were disproportionately affected by the evictions.

In a decisive move, the court declared that the failure to issue proper eviction notices and the forcible eviction of residents without providing alternative accommodation was illegal and unconstitutional.

The court also ordered that each of the evictees from Mathare, Gwa Kairu, Mukuru Kwa Ruben, and Kiamaiko be compensated for the loss of personal property and homes.

The compensation process will be carried out by a joint team comprising the evictees and the relevant government agencies.

A report detailing the compensation process and the extent of the losses will be filed in court within 120 days, and the affected families are to receive their compensation within 60 days of the completion of the assessment.

The court emphasised that this compensation should be fair and just, and in accordance with the constitutional rights of the residents.