Asili Mali Company Limited v County Government of Lamu & another (Environment & Land Petition E030 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 6258 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court ordered Lamu County to relocate a waste dumpsite within 120 days after finding it violated residents' right to a clean environment.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Responsibility for waste management within a county
The 1st Respondent (County Government of Lamu) is the entity mandated to establish and manage waste sites and must obtain an EIA and licence from NEMA
The court relied on Part 2 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution, EMCA, the Sustainable Waste Management Act 2022 and prior ELC authority (Halai Concrete Quarries) to hold that refuse removal, refuse dumps and solid waste disposal are devolved county functions. Any waste facility requires an EIA approved and licensed by NEMA before operation.
Violation of the right to a clean and healthy environment
The operation of the Kanu waste collection centre without an EIA licence infringed the Petitioner's and residents' Article 42 rights; the allegation that the Petitioner's land was grabbed was unsubstantiated and irrelevant
The court found the site proximate to the sea and neighbourhood, its impact undeniable even if characterized as a collection centre rather than a dumpsite. The 1st Respondent's allegation that the Petitioner's land was irregularly alienated was not substantiated and could not excuse environmental harm.
Appropriate remedy for dumpsite/waste facility violations
Rather than immediate closure, the court issued a mandatory injunction with a continuing mandamus and a 120-day compliance timeline monitored through a NEMA compliance report
Following Rabera, ACRAG and Odando, the court held that garbage is generated daily and immediate closure would be impractical; courts should be part of the solution. Equity and environmental justice demanded restoration orders be reinforced and compliance judicially supervised through continuing mandamus.
Legal principles established
#- County governments are responsible for establishing and managing waste disposal sites/materials recovery facilities within their jurisdictions and must obtain an EIA and licence from NEMA before operating them
- Closure or relocation of dumpsites requires a graduated, cautious approach rather than immediate orders
- A claimant need not prove personal injury or loss to sue for a clean and healthy environment
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the acts by the 1st Respondent are in contravention of Articles 40, 42, 43, 47 and 69 of the Constitution
- 2.Declaration that the Petitioner's right to a clean and healthy environment, and that of adjoining parcel No. Lamu/Block I/1203 and the general area, has been violated by the acts and/or omissions of the 1st Respondent
- 3.Mandatory injunction compelling the 1st Respondent to identify and relocate the dumpsite to a different and suitable site in accordance with the Sustainable Waste Management Act, 2022 and EMCA, 1999
- 4.Continuing mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to comply within 120 days, with the 2nd Respondent to file a Compliance Report after 120 days or earlier upon compliance
- 5.Each party to bear its costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) Constitution; Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011, Section 13(7)(a)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Asili Mali Company Limited v County Government of Lamu & another (Environment & Land Petition E030 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 6258 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). not stated in extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6258/eng@2024-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.