Police have been thrust into the centre of President William Ruto’s flagship affordable housing initiative after a court ordered officers to assist in enforcement of an order halting the 15,000-unit Southlands Estate project in Lang’ata, Nairobi, citing unresolved legal and environmental concerns.
In a ruling delivered on Thursday, the Environment and Land Court issued conservatory orders stopping all excavation and construction work at the Southlands site pending the hearing and determination of a petition filed against the project.
The court further directed the Officer Commanding Station at Lang’ata Police Station to “provide all necessary support in execution of the orders.”
The three-judge bench also ordered that the main petition challenging the project be fast-tracked for hearing.
The project, formally known as the Southlands Affordable Housing Project, is part of the government’s Affordable Housing Programme, a key pillar of President Ruto’s development agenda.
The State has previously stated that the scheme aims to deliver thousands of low-cost homes and help reduce Nairobi’s housing deficit.
The case was filed by Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah, who argued that the development was launched on public land reserved as a transport corridor and buffer zone linked to the Southern Bypass without lawful approvals or meaningful public participation.
He contended that construction began before a proper environmental assessment was completed, warning that continued work would irreversibly alter the land and undermine the case before its resolution.
In his filings, Mr Omtatah stated that excavation had already caused dust, noise, and vibrations affecting nearby estates, including Southlands, Park 1, Civil Servants, Uhuru Gardens, and Maasai estates.
President William Ruto, Nairobi Women Rep Esther Passaris during the inspection of the on-going construction of the 4,054-unit Kibra Soweto East Affordable Housing Project in Kibra, Nairobi County.
Photo credit: PCS
He also warned that Lang’ata’s water and sewerage systems were already overstretched and that the planned high-rise blocks—some reaching 17 stories—would intrude on residents’ privacy, worsen congestion, and intensify environmental strain.
The petition further raised aviation safety concerns due to the project’s proximity to Wilson Airport and alleged that residents and other stakeholders were sidelined during planning.
Mr Omtatah maintained that the land in question is public and that its conversion into high-density housing without legal due process amounted to an abuse of power requiring urgent court intervention.
The government defended the project, stating that it is anchored in the Constitution and statutes such as the Land Act, the Sectional Properties Act, and the Affordable Housing Act.
Housing Principal Secretary Charles Hinga told the court that an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) report was submitted on September 21, 2025, and that public participation was conducted in June 2025.
He added that the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) issued an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) license on December 16, 2025, attributing any delays to technical issues in NEMA’s payment system rather than non-compliance.
Mr Hinga warned that stopping the project would expose the State to significant financial losses, including idle equipment, labor costs, and lost profits amounting to billions of shillings, while also affecting hundreds of workers already employed at the site.
He added that delays would slow the delivery of more than 5,000 housing units planned across the project’s different phases.
However, NEMA’s Director-General submitted two affidavits that the court deemed “materially self-contradictory” regarding whether the project underwent proper environmental assessment.
Initially, NEMA acknowledged in writing that its records showed no EIA for the project, but later claimed an ESIA had been submitted and public participation conducted.
The judges ruled that these contradictions undermined the credibility of the evidence and did not override NEMA’s earlier admission of non-compliance.
The court emphasized that conservatory orders are public-law tools designed to uphold constitutional values and prevent disputes from becoming moot.
It found that the petition raised substantial questions about the legality of approvals, the use of land reserved for transport and environmental buffering, and compliance with environmental and public participation laws.
Allowing construction to proceed, the judges argued, risked permanently altering the land’s character before these issues were resolved.
While acknowledging the State’s obligation to promote housing access and the financial impact of a stoppage, the bench ruled that public interest also demanded adherence to the rule of law and environmental protections.
Consequently, it ordered an immediate halt to the project and directed police to enforce the decision, placing law enforcement at the center of the legal battle over one of the government’s most prominent housing initiatives.
