Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
High CourtAllowed

Silvia Endere v [Defendant Flower Farm Company]

High Court of Kenya
31 March 2006
1,803 words in judgment
View original judgment Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Even if a community requests environmental work, developers must still follow all Kenyan environmental laws, including obtaining NEMA approval.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, owner of parcel No. 599 at Eldama Ravine, sued seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, a commercial flower farmer owning parcel No. 572 about a kilometre away uphill, from excavating, constructing or channeling storm water, waste water or other substances into her dam or into the neighbouring dam at Simotwet Primary School. She simultaneously applied under Order XXXIX rules 1(a), 2, 2A and 9 and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act for a temporary injunction on the same terms, supported by her affidavit and a supplementary affidavit. The defendant, through its Human Resource Manager Joyce Gema, opposed, deponing that it had not directed waste water to the plaintiff's dam; that it had desilted the silted school dam at the request of the local community; and that only pollutant-free storm water from its green house roofs drained to the school dam. Counsel for the defendant added that an environmental impact assessment had been approved by NEMA before the flower farm was established. Kimaru J framed a single issue: whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for the interlocutory injunction. He found the defendant had complied with EMCA for the original farm project, but that no environmental impact assessment was prepared nor NEMA approval sought before the dam rehabilitation, as required by Sections 58-68 of EMCA and the Second Schedule paragraph 4, and the plaintiff was not consulted despite being affected by spill-over. Holding the plaintiff was not a busybody and was entitled under Section 3 of EMCA to enforce the Act, the court found a prima facie case and granted a temporary injunction in the terms sought, with costs of the application to the plaintiff.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction

Holding

Yes - the plaintiff established a prima facie case because the defendant undertook the dam rehabilitation without the environmental impact assessment and NEMA approval required by EMCA, and without consulting the affected plaintiff

Reasoning

The court found undisputed facts: the defendant owned parcel 572 with green houses, the plaintiff owned the lower-lying parcel 599 about a kilometre away. The defendant rehabilitated the Simotwet Primary School dam at community request but also to channel its storm and waste water. No EIA report was prepared nor NEMA approval sought for that project, and the plaintiff was not consulted despite being affected by spill-over. Her apprehension of pollution could well be true, and she was entitled under Section 3 EMCA to enforce the Act. A prima facie case was therefore established.

p. 4
02

Whether community consultation and approval dispense with the statutory requirement of an environmental impact assessment

Holding

No - community request and approval do not substitute for the statutory EIA and NEMA authorisation process

Reasoning

The defendant argued the local community requested and approved the dam rehabilitation. The court held that despite this, the defendant undertook the project before seeking NEMA's authority as required by Sections 58-68 of EMCA and the Second Schedule paragraph 4, and was required in law to consult all parties likely to be affected in coordination with NEMA. The plaintiff was not consulted and was aggrieved and affected by the spill-over.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A person is entitled under Section 3 of EMCA to enforce the provisions of the Act where another is likely to contravene them and cause harm to the environment
  • An environmental impact assessment and NEMA approval are required under Sections 58-68 of EMCA and the Second Schedule paragraph 4 before undertaking a dam rehabilitation project

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Temporary injunction restraining the defendant by itself or its agents from trespassing onto, excavating, constructing, alienating or channeling storm water or waste matter or any other substance into the dam in the plaintiff's parcel of land (parcel No. 599) or in the dam in the grounds of Simotwet Primary School pending the hearing and determination of the suit
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder XXXIX rules 1(a), 2, 2A and 9
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
  • The Environmental Management and Coordination Act (Act No. 8 of 1999)Section 3
  • The Environmental Management and Coordination Act [EMCA]Sections 58-68 and Second Schedule paragraph 4
Jurisdiction invoked
Order XXXIX rules 1(a), 2, 2A and 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Section 3 of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Silvia Endere v [Defendant Flower Farm Company]", Case Analysis (2006). . Source: 

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.