The High Court has cleared the way for the construction of the Sh8.7 billion Riruta–Ngong railway line, dismissing a petition that challenged the project over alleged lack of public participation and environmental concerns.

In her ruling, Justice Anne Omollo found that Kenya Railways, the Ministry of Roads and Transport, and the two Chinese contractors had carried out adequate consultations with stakeholders before submitting the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) report to the National Environment Management Authority (Nema).

The petition had been filed by the Karen Lang’ata District Association, which argued that public engagement had been insufficient and that directly affected persons had been sidelined.

But the judge stated that available evidence proved that consultations were held ahead of the ESIA report dated May 17, 2024.

The 12.5-kilometre commuter railway line, launched in December 2023, connects Riruta, Karen, Bulbul, and Ngong. Once completed, it is projected to carry 10,000 passengers daily and ease traffic congestion along the busy Nairobi–Ngong corridor.

On the issue of environmental impact, the court found that the concerns raised did not justify stopping the project. Justice Omollo said that while environmental protection remains important, it must be weighed against the public interest in enhanced transport services.

“The court is of the view that continuous monitoring and mitigation will sufficiently address any potential environmental harm,” she ruled.

The association had also claimed that the project was started on government land without involving the surrounding community, posed a threat to biodiversity, and breached principles of public finance.

It further questioned the authenticity of participation records and asked the court to cancel the contract involving Kenya Railways, China Railway Design Corporation, and Apec Consortium Co. Ltd.

However, the judge declined to grant orders to suspend or terminate the project, stating that the petitioners did not prove that the anticipated harm to the environment was greater than the public benefit.

She added that the mitigation measures in the ESIA report were not shown to be insufficient.

In her judgment, Justice Omollo also noted that the government had committed to ensuring minimal disruption to residents and private property as the project progresses.

The decision is expected to influence future disputes where environmental and public participation concerns are raised against infrastructure projects considered to have national value. It highlights the court’s approach in balancing constitutional rights with the country’s development agenda.