SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Rose Juma Nyanjom & 3 others v County Government of Kisumu & 2 others [2018] KEELC 4210 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 4210 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
4210
Citation
[2018] KEELC 4210 (KLR)
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

The court allows only prayer 4 of the notice of motion dated 29th January 2018 with costs in the cause.

Facts

Petitioners claim the County Government of Kisumu and two other respondents awarded a tender for the relocation of waste from Kachok dumpsite to Kisumu Concrete Quarry pit without adhering to environmental laws.

Issues

  • Violation of environmental laws
  • Right to clean and healthy environment
  • Environmental Impact Assessment
  • National Environment Management Authority's license

Reasoning

The court finds the petitioners have not established a reasonable basis for a conservatory order but allows the prayer to advertise the petition in daily newspaper for affected parties.

Outcome

Allowed only prayer 4 of the notice of motion

Orders

  • Conservatory orders restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents from transferring solid waste from Kachok dumpsite to Kisumu Concrete Quarry pit in Maboleo.
  • Conservatory orders restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents from transferring solid waste from Kisumu concrete abandoned quarry pit in Mamboleo.
  • Order allowing petitioners to advertise the application and petition in daily newspaper of national circulation
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case