KRC cannot proceed with the eviction until the State fully complies with the court’s previous directives and the constitutional requirements governing forced evictions.

The High Court has rejected an application by Kenya Railways Corporation (KRC) seeking the implementation of eviction orders against residents of Nairobi’s Muthurwa estate, holding that the constitutional safeguards governing forced evictions have not yet been met.

In a ruling delivered by Justice Kanyi Kimondo, the court found that although KRC remains the lawful owner of the property, it cannot proceed with the eviction until all conditions set out in previous court orders and the Constitution are fully complied with.

The dispute, filed as Satrose Ayuma and 11 Others v KRC, involves families who have lived in the estate for decades as tenants of the Corporation.

Justice Kimondo noted that the court had, in its landmark judgment delivered on August 26, 2013, laid down strict safeguards intended to protect the dignity and rights of people facing eviction.

Among the conditions, the court directed that evictions should not be carried out at night, during adverse weather, on public holidays or festivals, or immediately before school examinations.

“These forced evictions must not take place at night, in bad weather, during festivals or holidays, prior to or just before school exams, and preferably at the end of the school term or during school holidays. No one is subjected to indiscriminate attacks,” the judge reiterated from the earlier orders.

Following the 2013 judgment, KRC and the residents entered mediation to agree on a structured eviction programme. However, the negotiations failed, prompting the Corporation to return to court in May 2014 seeking directions on how to implement the judgment.

The court also recalled orders issued in December 2015 requiring the residents to vacate by April 30, 2016, while directing the State to present, within 60 days, details of the legislative and policy framework governing forced evictions and the protection of the constitutional rights to housing and sanitation.

Justice Kimondo observed that more than a decade later, no evidence had been presented to show that the State had complied with those directions.

“Despite the very clear order… no such evidence was exhibited in the application, notwithstanding that it is now 13 years since the order was issued,” he said.

The judge further found that KRC had failed to demonstrate that the constitutional safeguards necessary to protect affected residents were in place.

“There was no information detailing the legislative and policy framework that the State has put in place to regulate forced evictions and demolitions and to advance constitutional rights to adequate housing and reasonable sanitation,” the court held.

Emphasising that compliance with its earlier orders could not be selective, Justice Kimondo ruled: “Partial or selective implementation of certain components alone or leaving out others is impermissible and cannot be sanctioned by this Honourable Court.”

The application was consequently dismissed, meaning KRC cannot proceed with the eviction until the State fully complies with the court’s previous directives and the constitutional requirements governing forced evictions.

Source: eastleighvoice.co.ke

Last week, the carbon credits certifier Verra reinstated for the second time a hugely controversial carbon credit scheme in Kenya led by the Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT), despite a court ruling from 2025 that two of the largest conservancies set up by NRT had been established unconstitutionally, with no basis in law.

One of these, Biliqo Bulesa, contributes about 20 percent of the carbon credits to the project. The court ruling could potentially be applied to half of the other conservancies involved.

Despite the enormous question mark this ruling raises over NRT’s entire operation, Verra decided last week to reinstate the whole 2-million-hectare project on the basis of a “ratification” process carried out in just one community — without even waiting for the final outcome of the court case, which NRT has appealed and which is still ongoing. This is not only absurd, but potentially damaging for the rights of Indigenous peoples everywhere.

The supposed ‘ratification’ project claimed to secure communities’ FPIC – free, prior and informed consent. But that has to come before a project starts, not be bolted on 14 years later, once a court has ruled the whole thing was built on illegal land grabs. NRT and Verra are not simply patching up a paperwork error; they are trying to retroactively legitimize a project that should never have existed in the first place.

If other communities still say no, what then? Will Verra finally scrap the project – or just keep looking for new ways to get to “yes”?

This is the real scandal: under Verra’s rules, you can sell carbon credits derived from violations of Indigenous peoples’ rights under international law, let companies like Meta and Netflix buy and trade them for years, and then – once you’re caught – simply fix the paperwork retroactively and carry on as if nothing happened.

That’s not integrity, that’s impunity. And it’s a warning for every company still buying Verra credits, anywhere: if this is what “compliance” looks like, the whole system is little more than a rubber stamp for greenwashing abuses against Indigenous peoples.

The project is currently being restructured in an attempt to make it consistent with Kenya’s laws – raising the question as to how it was ever authorised under Verra’s system, and how it issued millions of credits when it was clearly not compliant with Kenyan law – and in order to obtain communities’ FPIC. Survival has learnt that this is being strongly resisted by some communities, and is far from over. Verra’s decision to reinstate the project has completely pre-empted this process.

Source: survivalinternational.org