Relief for Muthurwa Estate residents as court blocks Kenya Railways' eviction bid

The case Satrose Ayuma and 11 Others v Kenya Railways Corporation, involves residents who have lived in the estate for decades as tenants of Kenya Railways.

In its ruling, the court noted that while Kenya Railways is the lawful owner of the property and is entitled to recover its land, any eviction process must comply with previous court orders and constitutional requirements protecting the right to housing.

The court recalled its earlier judgment of August 26, 2013, which set out conditions under which evictions could take place. The court had directed that evictions should not occur at night, during bad weather, festivals or holidays, or during school examination periods, and should preferably be conducted during school holidays. It also ordered that no person should be subjected to indiscriminate attacks during the eviction process.

Following that judgment, the parties held mediation meetings to develop an eviction programme but failed to reach an agreement. Kenya Railways subsequently filed an application on May 14, 2014, seeking the court's intervention in settling the terms of the eviction.

On December 18, 2015, the court ordered the residents to vacate the premises by April 30, 2016, and further directed the State to provide information within 60 days on legislative and policy measures governing forced evictions, demolitions and the realization of the rights to adequate housing and sanitation.

However, the court observed that despite the passage of more than a decade, no evidence had been presented showing what measures the State had put in place to regulate forced evictions and protect the constitutional rights of affected persons.

"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.

The judge further found that it had not been demonstrated that the necessary safeguards and measures had been put in place to ensure any planned eviction would comply with constitutional obligations.

The court emphasized that all components of its earlier orders must be fully implemented before any eviction can be sanctioned, adding that partial or selective compliance with the orders is impermissible.

Consequently, the court declined and dismissed the application.