Hassan & 3 others v Safaricom Ltd & another (Environment and Land Case 71A of 2022) [2025] KEELC 8182 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Mombasa court dismissed a family's pollution claim against a telecom facility because they brought no independent measurements proving harm beyond regulatory limits.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st defendant caused actionable air, noise and radiation pollution
No - emissions were within regulatory limits and plaintiffs tendered no contrary measurements
The Mazingira EIA report contained actual measurements of air quality, noise and non-ionizing radiation, all within national and international standards, including WHO limits. The plaintiffs' Prudent report was a critique without alternative measurements. Medical reports did not causally link their ailments to the emissions, and the generator was a backup used only during power outages.
Whether vibrations from the generator caused structural damage to the plaintiffs' house
No - the operative cause of the structural deficiency was the shallow foundation and uneven settlement, not the occasional generator vibrations
The structural engineer's report showed the house was deficient in structural stiffness with a shallow foundation and uneven settlement possibly due to external vibration. The defendant's own wall, closer to the generator, remained intact; settlement could not plausibly arise over 14 years after construction from an occasional backup generator installed in 2014.
Whether the 2nd defendant was liable for aiding and abetting
No - liability was dependent on the 1st defendant's liability, which failed
The claim against the 2nd defendant was that it aided and abetted the 1st defendant's violations. Having found no liability against the 1st defendant, the derivative claim against the 2nd defendant necessarily failed. Any challenge to authorisation belonged under EMCA's statutory mechanisms.
Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for loss of business
No - the shop closure could not reasonably be attributed to the defendant's operations
Having found no pollution liability, the claim for loss of income failed; occasional vibrations from a backup generator during power outages would not cause a reasonable businessman to close his shop indefinitely.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of proof in civil cases lies primarily on the claimant, on a balance of probabilities
- Costs follow the event unless the court for good reason directs otherwise
- A party aggrieved by an environmental authorisation must pursue the specific statutory challenge mechanisms under EMCA rather than a general damages suit
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiffs' suit against the 1st defendant is dismissed with costs
- 2.The plaintiffs' suit against the 2nd defendant is dismissed with no order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance civil action under the plaint procedure; court framed issues under Order 15 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Hassan & 3 others v Safaricom Ltd & another (Environment and Land Case 71A of 2022) [2025] KEELC 8182 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (plaint dated 11.12.2020, amended 16.10.2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8182/eng@2025-11-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.