Mahmud v Al Madaar Trading Company Ltd & another; Nairobi City County Government & another (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Petition E022 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6742 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court ordered KURA, the county government and the water company to repair broken sewer lines within 14 days after a Kibera resident's home was flooded with sewage.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a mandatory injunction should issue at the interlocutory stage
Yes - the court found a damaged sewer line, ongoing leakages and overflow, non-compliance with its earlier ex parte order, and held this a proper case for a mandatory injunction.
The court applied the higher threshold for mandatory injunctions from Kenya Breweries v Washington Okeyo citing Halsbury's Laws, Vol. 24, para 948. It found the case clear and the act simple and remediable. A site visit report by the Assistant Deputy Registrar confirmed sewage overflow and the Petitioner's unconnected sewer pipe, negating the 2nd Interested Party's claim of repair. The court invoked Articles 42, 69 and 70 of the Constitution and the precautionary principle to justify preventive intervention against continuing environmental harm.
Whether a temporary injunction restraining further construction should issue
No - with the mandatory injunction in place, no further harm would befall the Applicant and the construction serves the public benefit.
Applying Giella v Cassman Brown as elaborated in Mrao and Nguruman, the court found the Petitioner had a prima facie case given the damaged sewer line and his Article 42 right. However, on the irreparable harm limb, it reasoned that the mandatory injunction already secured repair of the drainage lines, so no further harm would follow. It declined to halt construction that would benefit Nairobi residents generally, finding no merit in the temporary injunction.
Costs of the application
Costs follow the event under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act; the successful Applicant was granted costs.
The court invoked section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides that costs shall follow the event, with the successful party ordinarily having costs. Having succeeded on the mandatory injunction limb of the application, the Petitioner was awarded the costs of the application against the Respondents and Interested Party against whom the order issued.
Legal principles established
#- A mandatory injunction may be granted at the interlocutory stage where the case is clear, the act is simple and summary and easily remedied, or where the defendant attempts to steal a match.
- The three Giella conditions are sequential hurdles; if no prima facie case is established the court need not consider the remaining conditions.
- Article 42 guarantees the right to a clean and healthy environment and the right to seek redress without demonstrating loss or injury.
Court orders
#- 1.A mandatory injunction is hereby issued against the 1st and 2nd Respondents and the 2nd Interested Party compelling them jointly and severally to forthwith repair the drainage lines in their construction site at Toughgone in Makina Ward, in Kibera in any event within the next fourteen (14) days from the date of this ruling.
- 2.The costs of the application are granted to the Applicant.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 42, 69 and 70 of the Constitution of Kenya (environmental rights and redress)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mahmud v Al Madaar Trading Company Ltd & another; Nairobi City County Government & another (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Petition E022 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6742 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment text provided (Petitioner's application dated 8th November, 2023, amended 10th November, 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6742/eng@2024-10-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.