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.
Comments
Sign in with Google to comment, reply, and like comments.
Continue with Google