A court has declined a request by the Kiambu County government to lift an order halting a plan to convert a section of a residential estate in Ruiru into a rescue centre for gender-based violence survivors.
The Environment and Lands Court stopped the donor-funded project through an order for status quo dated June 23, 2021, following a case filed by the Ruiru Kangangi Estate Welfare Association challenging the government’s decision to evict the residents.
The status quo order was a result of an agreement between the residents and the county government stating that they continue living on the suit property until the petition is heard and determined.
The eight residential houses were developed in 1974 and are owned by the government for its employees on a landlord-tenant agreement.
According to the County Minister for Education Gender, Culture and Social Service, Mary Kamau, the devolved unit has earmarked the entire estate for the development of a rescue centre for survivors of gender-based violence.
The Minister said the government has secured donor funding to rehabilitate the estate and it risks losing the donor aid unless the designated houses are vacated and made available for rehabilitation.
In urging the court to set aside the order, the CEC said the request was aimed at enabling the government to protect the rights of the vulnerable women and children in need of housing.
But Justice Grace Kemei said there was no evidence adduced by the county government to show that indeed a donor was involved in the project, evidence of approval of donor funds and even the strict schedule of implementation.
“Neither has it been demonstrated that the information with respect to the financial aid and the donor was not within the knowledge of the county government when the orders were made,” said Justice Kemei.
In their petition lodged in court in June this year, the aggrieved residents contend that no public participation was carried out for the conversion of the housing units into a rescue center.
They have been maintaining the houses and dutifully paid rent having occupied the premises for over 40 years.
They argue that they have a legitimate expectation of being accorded priority and preference over the disposal of the units as assured by the county government and its predecessor.