AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 5/11/2025 (Siaya ELRC/ELC suit, case number not stated in judgment)· [2026] KEELC 413 (KLR)
Akango & 11 others v Hagono & 3 others; National Environment Management Authority Public Health and Sanitation Office & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case E044 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 413 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#A Siaya court refused to stop gold mining on private land because residents produced no evidence of the mining or the damage they claimed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#The plaintiffs brought a Notice of Motion dated 5/11/2025 seeking temporary injunctions restraining the defendants, their lessees and agents from carrying out mining activities on land parcel Central Alego/Komolo/3435, and from interfering with their constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment, pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The application was supported by an affidavit of the 1st plaintiff, a resident of Kobare Village, Siaya County, who deponed that gold was discovered on the suit land around 25th October 2025, after which miners descended on the village causing open defecation, noise pollution from generators, cracking of walls of adjoining houses, insecurity, and unauthorised mining beneath neighbouring private parcels. No mining licence or environmental impact assessment approval was produced, and NEMA and the County Government of Siaya allegedly denied knowledge of the site. The application was brought under Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 40 Rule 1 and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and Section 68 of the Land Registration Act. The Attorney General entered appearance but did not respond; service on the 2nd defendant was not confirmed and the 3rd defendant was represented. No party filed submissions. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and Nguruman v Jan Bonde Nielsen, the court held that although the applicants are residents entitled to a clean and healthy environment, they failed to place before the court any evidence of the mining activities, the alleged structural damage, or noise measurements under the 2009 Noise Regulations, and had made no formal complaints to authorities. A land search alone was not proof of the harm alleged. The application was dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether the applicants established a prima facie case with a probability of success for purposes of a temporary injunction
Holding
No prima facie case was established; the applicants' material did not prove the alleged mining activities, structural damage or noise pollution
Reasoning
Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen, the court found the applicants had only presented a search of the suit property. No measurements, reports or formal complaints to authorities were adduced to substantiate the alleged environmental harm under the Noise Regulations 2009. A land search alone is not proof of the activities and harm sought to be restrained.
p. 5
Legal principles established
#- An unopposed application must still be considered on its merits.
- It is the applicant's duty to place evidence before the court to enable a preliminary conclusion of a prima facie case.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 5/11/2025 is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction under Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 40 Rule 1 and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, and Section 68 of the Land Registration Act No. 3 of 2012
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Akango & 11 others v Hagono & 3 others; National Environment Management Authority Public Health and Sanitation Office & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case E044 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 413 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 5/11/2025 (Siaya ELRC/ELC suit, case number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/413/eng@2026-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.