Mwangi & 3 others v Kenya National Highway Authority & another (Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 6156 (KLR) (30 September 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 6156 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NANYUKI ENVIRONMENT AND LAND PETITION E002 OF 2025 LN MBUGUA, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLE 2, 19(1), 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 40, 47, 60, 64, 68, 162(2) (B), 258 (2) AND 259 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA -ANDIN THE MATTER OF VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 40, 60, 64 & 68 OF THE CONSTITUTION BETWEEN RAHAB WANGUI MWANGI ......................................................... 1ST PETITIONER ROSEMARY WAMUYU MWANGI ............................................... 2ND PETITIONER JACQULINE WANGU MWANGI .................................................. 3RD PETITIONER ALICE NYAMBURA MWANGI (IN THEIR CAPACITY AS THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF BEN MWANGI KIHIA (DECEASED)) .................................................................................... 4TH PETITIONER AND KENYA NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY ....................... 1ST RESPONDENT STATE LAW OFFICE .................................................................... 2ND RESPONDENT RULING 1. This petition was contemporaneously led with an application dated 9.6.2025. When the matter was rst mentioned before this court on 23.7.2025, counsel for the 1st respondent informed the court that they already had a draft replying adavit and that they were waiting for instructions to le the same. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6156/eng@2026-09-30 1
page 1 of 2
The 1st respondent was granted more time upto 13.8.2025 to le a response to the application and the petition. The 1st respondent did not comply with the aforementioned directions as they led the replying adavit to both the petition and the application way out of the given timelines on 30.9.2025. In the interest of justice, the court indulged the 1st respondent, thus its documents were admitted on record. 2. It however turned out that the documents led by the 1st respondent were not clear and they were given time to le clear copies by 13.11.2025. The court also gave directions for the petition to be heard by way of written submissions. By then, the application had been compromised by the parties. 3. A year down the line from when the 1st respondent led their replying adavit, they have not fully complied on the issue relating to their documents. Thus on 22.9.2026, it emerged that the 1st respondent had not led their annexure 3, of which counsel for the petitioner urged this court to expunge the said document from the records, hence this ruling. 4. Counsel for the 1st respondent urged the court to give them more time so as to retrieve annexure 3, averring that they stand to be prejudiced if the document is expunged. 5. I nd that the 1st respondent has had ample time, more than a year and counting to avail their relevant documents. One wonders what the deponent of the replying adavit was referring to at paragraph 6 where he refers to “annexure GNN3” as proof of the compensation schedule!. In that regard, I decline to grant the 1st respondent more time to avail further documents. Thus annexure 3 is expunged from the records. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NANYUKI THIS 30th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS. LUCY N. MBUGUA JUDGE In the presence of: M/s Irungu for Petitioner M/s Kiunga for 1st Respondent 2nd Respondent – absent Yaru/Consolata – Court Assistants https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6156/eng@2026-09-30 2
page 2 of 2