Obuli & 2 others v National Environment Management Authority & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E018 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1103 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Nairobi's county government must clear the Umoja dumpsite within 120 days and pay each resident petitioner Kshs.30,000 for violating their right to a clean environment.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Violation of Articles 42 and 43 - right to clean and healthy environment and socio-economic rights
The 2nd Respondent, Nairobi City County Government, violated the Petitioners' rights under Articles 42 and 43 by failing to prevent, control and abate the illegal dumping of solid waste in Umoja
Both NEMA's own Field Inspection Report of 3rd July 2024 and the County's Status Report confirmed an active, unfenced, unmanned dumpsite between residential buildings and beneath power lines, blocking the link road. The County's gradual clean-up (over 9,000 tonnes removed) was commendable but did not displace the fact that the situation had been permitted to exist and reach such proportions. Devolution places refuse removal and solid waste disposal squarely on county governments under Article 186(1) and Part 2(g) of the Fourth Schedule, reinforced by the County Governments Act, the Sustainable Waste Management Act and the Nairobi City County Solid Waste Management Act, 2015.
Violation of Article 39 - freedom of movement
No violation of Article 39 was established; the grievance is better addressed under Article 42 and the waste management statutory regime
Article 39 guards against unlawful or arbitrary restrictions on movement such as travel bans, curfews, cordons or checkpoints. The difficulty complained of arose from the physical condition of the road occasioned by waste accumulation, not a deliberate or direct restriction imposed by law or state action. The inconvenience and additional transport costs are more appropriately addressed within the environmental protection and public service delivery framework.
Mandates of the 3rd and 4th Respondents in waste management
Neither the 3rd Respondent (Kenya Power) nor the 4th Respondent (KeRRA) has any statutory mandate relating to solid waste management; reliefs against them do not lie
The governing statutory framework imposes no obligation on the energy-sector licensee to remove refuse or manage dumpsites; its role is confined to addressing risks to its infrastructure. Similarly, KeRRA's functions are confined to road engineering, infrastructure and usability; waste accumulation on a roadway is indicative of failures in waste management systems, not road maintenance. Imposing waste management responsibility on either would be an unwarranted expansion of their statutory roles.
Role of the 1st Respondent (NEMA) and whether it breached constitutional rights
NEMA's role is supervisory, coordinating and advisory; no breach was established against it, though it must remain proactive in supporting county governments
Section 9 of EMCA establishes NEMA as the principal instrument of government for environmental policy implementation with supervisory and coordinating functions. Section 12 restorative powers are discretionary. Following the filing of the Petition, NEMA inspected the site and issued an environmental restoration order to the County, demonstrating discharge of its mandate. No material showed it failed to discharge its supervisory role.
Appropriate remedies, including compensation
Declaratory relief, a structural interdict with compliance reporting, and compensation of Kshs.30,000/= each to the Petitioners only, payable by the County
Guided by the Supreme Court's decision in the Owino Uhuru appeal (EPZA v NEMA), compensation for constitutional violations is not assessed on tort principles but on factors including the nature and duration of the violation, impact, and deterrent value. Environmental harm litigation often cannot identify all affected persons, so compensation is payable only to identifiable litigants before the court. Given the systemic failure of environmental governance, supervisory relief through a structural interdict with a compliance report and mention for confirmation of compliance was warranted.
Legal principles established
#- The primary constitutional and statutory responsibility for refuse removal, refuse dumps and solid waste disposal rests with county governments under Article 186(1) and Part 2(g) of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution
- NEMA's mandate in waste management is supervisory, coordinative and advisory, not operational
- Inconvenience from a physically obstructed road does not of itself violate Article 39, which guards against unlawful or arbitrary restrictions on movement
- Constitutional compensation is not confined to strict proof of individualized loss; environmental rights are collective and public-facing
- A structural interdict may issue to secure sustained remedial action and institutional accountability for systemic failures of environmental governance
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Petitioners' rights under Articles 42 and 43 of the Constitution have been violated by the acts and omissions of the 2nd Respondent, Nairobi City County Government, in failing to prevent, control and abate the illegal dumping of solid waste within the Umoja residential area
- 2.The 2nd Respondent shall within four months (120 days) of the date of the Judgment clear all accumulated waste at the Umoja dumpsite including along the link road and power lines therein and restore the affected area to an environmentally safe and sanitary condition in accordance with EMCA and the applicable Waste Management Regulations
- 3.The 2nd Respondent shall file before the court, within 4.5 months (135 days) of the date of the Judgment, a detailed compliance report setting out the steps taken to clear and rehabilitate the site, measures to prevent recurrence, and institutional arrangements for continuous lawful waste management
- 4.Upon receipt of the compliance report, the matter shall be mentioned for purposes of confirming compliance and issuing further directions
- 5.The court awards the Petitioners compensation of Kshs.30,000/= each payable by the 2nd Respondent
- 6.The Petitioners are awarded half the costs of the Petition, to be borne by the 2nd Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23 and 70 of the Constitution; Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Obuli & 2 others v National Environment Management Authority & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E018 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1103 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Petition (Amended Petition dated 20th September, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1103/eng@2026-02-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.