Ole Tina v County Government of Narok & 2 others

(iv) Any other consequential reliefs and orders that this Honourable court deems just and expedient to grant. The Petition 2. It is averred that the 1st Respondent is responsible for the day to day collection of garbage, setting up and maintenance of Dumping of waste sites and cemeteries within Kilgoris town and entire Narok county, while the 2nd Respondent is responsible for licencing and overseeing, management, handling transportation, storage and disposal of waste, as well as the conducting Environmental impact assessment and environmental audit of all activities that are likely to have significant effect on the environmental and thereafter take appropriate steps towards preventing environmental pollution and degradation. 3. That the petitioner is the sole legal and registered owner of land parcel No. Transmara/Olalui/15 measuring approximately 24.2 Ha (60 acres) upon which the 1st Respondent has unlawfully set up ungazetted dumping site and a cemetery. 4. That sometimes in 2006 the defunct Transmara Cunty Council (the predecessor of 1st Respondent encroached into a portion measuring 2 Ha of the Petitioner’s land parcel No. Transmara/Olalui/15 and set up a dumping site and a cemetery. 5. The petitioner obtained orders of permanent injunction and eviction against the defunct Transmara county council (the predecessor of 1 st Respondent) vide Kisii High court Civil case No. 4 of 2007, and in a bid to circumvent the said orders the predecessor moved to a different portion of the suit land measuring approximately 2.9 Ha within land parcel No. Transmara/Olalui/15 and unlawfully set up a dumping site and cemetery without consent of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner pleaded particulars of Environmental pollution and degradation as well as particulars of environmental pollution and degradation on the initial site. P a g e 2 | 18

page 2 of 18

The legal foundation of the petition 7. The petition has its foundation on Articles 2(1), 3(1), 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 40(3)(b)(), 42, 43(1)(b), (c) and (d), 47, 48, 67(2)(e), 69(1) and (f) (g) and (h), 70 and 258 of the Constitution of Kenya as well as section 7, 9, 58, 59, 68, 86-90 of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act Section 111(1) and (2) of the Land Act Section 15(4) (d) of the National land commission Act No. 5 of 2012 and section 3(1) of the trespass Act. 8. The petition pleaded breach of section 117 and 118 of the Public Health Act as well as Articles 28, 40(1), 42, 43, 69 and 70 of the constitution was well as section 111(1) of the land Act. 9. On the strength of the averments above the Petitioner sought for the reliefs set out at paragraph 1 of this judgment, and proposed four (4) issues for determination as follows; (i) Whether the Respondents actions on land parcel No. Transmara/Olalui/65 amounts to violation/infringement of the petitioners rights and freedoms? (ii) Whether the Responds actions on land parcel Transmara/Olalui/15 caused serious environment pollution and degradation. (iii) Whether the Respondents action on land parcel No. Transmara/Olalui/15 caused the Petitioner to suffer damages. (iv) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to special, General and exemplary damages for trespass/pollution? (v) The Petition was supported by the affidavit of the Petitioners who reiterated the averments in the petition as his depositions and annexed a copy of the certificate of title of Transmara/Olalui/15, photographs of the dumpsite and a cemetery copy of judgment in High Court Civil Case No. 4 of 2007, copy of pictures, copy of an Environment complaint assessment and compensation report, letters dated 8 th April 2021 and 11th April 2023, copy of a valuation report, copy of P a g e 3 | 18

page 3 of 18

an Autopsy report and farm records, copy of Environmental report, copy of a demand letter. 10. The 1st Respondent the County Government of Narok was served with the petition as per the affidavit of George Tawo Advocate who had the conduct of the petition before transitioning to the judiciary as a Resident Magistrate and he serve via email. 11. The court again ordered personal service which was effected again on the office of the County Secretary on 01 July 2025 as per the affidavit of Mr. Daniel K. Kihara a licenced court process server. The court after being certified on the two previous service issued summons on the Director of legal services County Government of Narok, as well as the County Secretary both of whom did not attend appear in court as summoned. 12. On 22.09.2025, the Petitioner withdrew the petition against the 4th Respondent, the Honourable the Attorney General, and on 10.11.2025, the court directed that the petition would proceed as undefended against the 1st Respondent, who despite service and numerous summons directed at both the County Secretary and Director of legal services failed to heed to the summons and also enter appearance and file a Response. 13. The 2nd Respondent, the National Environment Management Authority entered appearance and filed a Replying affidavit deponed by a Mr. Fanuel Mosage, the Conty Director of Environment for Narok County; in which he depones; interalia. 14. The authority’s mandate under section 7 of the Environmental Management and co-ordination Act and the role of co-ordinating various environmental activities undertaken by lead agencies. 15. The 2nd Respondent denied any involvement, participation or authorisation of the establishment of a cemetery and dumping site on the petitioner’s parcel of land parcel No. Transmara/Olalui/15 located in Shankoe ward of Transmara West sub county; as it did not receive any application for an Environmental Impact Assessment Licence in respect of the cemetery or dumping site alleged to have P a g e 4 | 18

page 4 of 18

been construction/undergoing construction by the 1 st Respondent on the suit parcel. 16. That under section 58 of EMCA any proponent intending to carry out a project of the nature described in the petition required to obtain an EIA Licence. 17. That on 16th September 2024, the 2nd Respondent in exercising its mandate of general supervision in accordance with section 9 of EMCA wrote to 1st Respondent requesting it to take remedial action to address waste collection and maintenance of Kilgoris Slaughter house, and upon receipt of the complaint, forming of this petition, the 2nd Respondent conducted a site visit on the suit property and file a report in which it observed that waste disposal at the site was open and not manned by any county officer. The waste was mixed with plastics, glass, soil, paper etc. No construction works were ongoing at the scene on the date of site visit and waste had been duped by the roadside and no EIA Licence had been applied for or issued. 18. The 2nd Respondent deponed that the land ownership details were not within its mandate and hence the prayers could not issue against it, but it supported the petitioners constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 42 of the constitution and it submit to authority of court to issue orders against the 1 st Respondent compelling it to submit an EIA project report, and for closure of the dump site, and the 2 nd Respondent prayed that prayer (iv) against it should not be issued. 19. The 2nd Respondent annexed a copy of letter dated 16.09.2024 addressed to chief officer Department of Physical Planning of the 1st Respondent and a site visit/Inspection report dated 08.05.2025. 20. The 3rd Respondent filed a Response to the Petition, vide the Replying affidavit of Mr. Brian Ikol, the Director of Legal Affairs and Disputed Resolutions in which he deposed that the petition was fatally defective in so far as it was directed to the 3 rd Respondent as P a g e 5 | 18

page 5 of 18

its role under Articles 67(2) of the constitution as well as section 5, 6 and 14 of the National Land Commission Act were specific and had been judicially affirmed in Republic Vs. National Land Commission exparte Lolborn properties Ltd. 21. The 3rd Respondent denies sanctioning, approving and/or authorising the compulsory acquisition by the 1 st Respondent in respect of the suit property, Transmara/Olalui/15. 22. That the 1st Respondent did not and has never initiated the process of compulsory acquisition under section 110(1) of National Land Commission, and that the 3rd Respondent has not received any application, so as to initiate and or conclude a compulsory acquisition process; and that in line with the decision in Exparte Mugo Samuel Mutugi. 23. It is the acquiring authority that can be held liable and not the 3rd Respondent, hence the allegation of a forced acquisition sanctioned by the 3rd Respondent do not arise. 24. That the complained illegal actions relating to waste management dump sites, and cemeteries are functions of the county government under part 2 of the fourth schedule and section 5(1) (a) and (b) of the County Government Act as well as section 87 of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act functions which courts have affirmed therefore the 3 rd Respondent bears no jurisdiction and/or any liability, the petitioners allegation of a historic injustice is misconceived and could not be investigated having not been filed under section 15 of the National Land Commission Act; hence the claim for mandamus against the 3rd Respondent is misadvised as there has never been a request to acquire the parcel of land, hence the petition against 3rd Respondent is speculative, unsubstantiated, untenable in law and an abuse of court process and ought to be dismissed. 25. On 08.06.2026 when the matter was scheduled for judgment the court issued directions, directing parties to file a valuation report from a Government Valuer and file supplementary submissions on P a g e 6 | 18

page 6 of 18

the new report. The directions were issued pursuant to section 173(1) of the Evidence Act. Only the Petitioner filed the supplementary submissions the 2nd and 3rd Respondent did not, but they had filed their submissions on the petition as earlier directed, and the court now summarises the respective submissions. Petitioner’s Submissions 26. The petitioner has framed and submitted on 4 issues for determination. 27. On issue No. 1, whether the petition meets the threshold, for constitutional petition. The petitioner submits that he has pleaded environmental pollution and degradation caused by the action of the Respondent who set up a Dumping site and a cemetery within Transmara/Olalui/15 thus infringing on his rights under Articles 42 and 43 of the constitution. 28. The petitioner avers that he had filed an ordinary suit to wit Kisii High Court Civil Case No. 4 of 2007 which suit did not address the issues of environmental pollution and degradation and the 1st Respondent in circumventing the orders moved to a different part of the land and are now infringing on his right to property and to claim and healthy environment. 29. land The second issue as to whether the Respondents action on parcel No. Transmara/Olalui/15 amount to violations/infringement of the petitioner’s rights and freedoms. The petitioner submits that the 1st Respondent’s actions. The Petitioner submits that the 2nd Respondents Replying affidavit essentially supports the petition, and that there was infringement of Articles 19-21, 27, 40, 42, 43, 67, 69 and 70 of the Constitution, as well as sections 7, 9, 58, 59, 68, 86-90 of the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act of 1999; section 111 of Land Act and Section 15 of the National Land Commission Act, Section 116, 117 and 118 of the Public health Act. P a g e 7 | 18

page 7 of 18

30. On issue 11, as to whether the Respondents action cause environment pollution and degradation. 31. The Petitioner submits that the 1st Respondent actions have degraded the environment on approximately 2.9 Ha of the Petitioner’s property known as Transmara/Olalui/15 as evidenced by the Reports exhibited in the supporting affidavit as the dump site has caused serious nuisance and degradation of the petitioner’s land and the toxic substances deposited thereon have caused serious and extensive environmental damage and degradation while the cemetery has affected underground water bodies. 32. On issue No. 4, the Petitioner submits that there have been health complications occasioned on humans and livestock, as per the autopsy reported dated 11.10.2023, soil degradation due to dumping of plastics, water pollution and psycho-social trauma, due to the shallow graves. 33. On reliefs, the petitioner submits for loss of value of property at 86, 918, 400 and cost of restoration @ 63, 139, 160, General damages of Kshs.2,000,000/= as per KM and 9 Others Vs. A.G, as well as Mohammed Ali Baadki and Others Vs. A.G Exemplary damages for impunity and urges the court to allow the petition. 34. On the supplementary submissions, the petitioner submits that under section 173(1) of the Evidence Act the court had latitude to call additional evidence in the form of the report by the Government valuer. 2nd Respondent’s Submissions 35. The 2nd Respondent framed and submitted on two issues for determination, 36. On issue 1, the 2nd Respondent submitted on whether or not it was complicit in the establishment of a cemetery and a dumping site on the petitioner’s parcel of land, which the 2 nd Respondent submitted that it was not complicit and placed reliance on the P a g e 8 | 18

page 8 of 18

Replying Affidavit of Fanuel Mosago sworn on 26th May 2025 to buttress its position. 37. It was the 2nd Respondent’s submission that it received a complaint from the petitioner and conducted investigations and observed the issues in annexture number FM 2 of the Replying Affidavit of Fanuel Musango 38. That there was no application for an E.I.A licence in respect of the cemetery or dumping site as alleged, in contravention of section 58 of EMCA as buttressed by the decision in Green Belt Movement Vs. Honourable Attorney General (Environment and Land Petition E042 of 2024), as well as Tiara Villas Management Ltd and Others Vs. Joel Mutambu and 3 Others KECLC 2330 (KCR) 39. On issue No. 2 as to whether the 2 nd Respondent exercised its mandate and performed its obligations in accordance with EMCA 40. The 2nd Respondent submits that under section 9 of the EMCA, and in line with the said provisions, it wrote a letter dated 16 th September 2024 requesting the 1st Respondent to take remedial actions and the petitioner cannot be heard to say that the 2 nd Respondent did not carry out its mandate. 41. The 2nd Respondent further submits that in line with the belligerent nature of the 1st Respondent it supports the petitioner’s case and entitlement to the right to a clean and heath environment as enshrined under Article 42 of the constitution and submits that it carried out its mandate; and submitted for the closure of the dump site. 3rd Respondent’s Submissions 42. On its part the 3rd Respondent framed and submitted on two issues for determination. 43. On issue No. 1, the 3rd Respondent submitted that it had no role both constitutionally and/or statutory under Article 67 (1) and 67 (2) of the constitution from where it draws its mandate, and cites P a g e 9 | 18

page 9 of 18

the decision in the case of Republic Vs. National Land Commission exparte Holborn Properties Ltd (2016) eKLR as well as Republic Vs. National Mugo Mutugi (2018) eKLR. 44. The 3rd Respondent further submits that the NLC could not lawfully involve itself in or authorise the conversion or use of private land as a dump site or when such matters lie outside its legal functions. 45. On the second issue, the 3rd Respondent submits that the orders of judicial Review specifically the orders of Mandamus can only issue when there is a statutory duty to be performed and there is failure to perform the said duty. 46. The 3rd Respondent submits that the orders sought cannot issue against it as there is no breach of any statutory or constitutional obligation and they place reliance on the decision in Republic Vs. Permanent Secretary Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security Exparte Fredrick Manoah Egunza (2012) eKLR, and the Holborn Properties decision. 47. The 1st Respondent did not participate in the proceedings and thus did not file submissions. 48. Both the 2nd and 3rd Respondents did not file supplementary submissions pursuant to the direction issued by the court on 08.06.2026 subsequent to the filing of a valuation report. 49. Before framing issues for determination, the court notes the following undisputed facts; (i) That the 1st Respondent, the County Government of Narok, did not take part in these proceedings despite service upon them on numerous occasions and secondly that in essence the 2 nd Respondent, supported the Petition. Issues for Determination 50. The issues of determination arising from the Petition, the Replying affidavits, as well as the submissions are as follows; - P a g e 10 | 18

page 10 of 18

(i) Whether petition meets the threshold of constitutional petitions as set out in the decision in Annarita Karimi Njeru. (ii) Whether there were constitutional violations meted against the petitioner and who among the Respondents is responsible for the violations. (iii) What reliefs ought to issue. (iv) Who bears the costs of this petition? Analysis and Determination 51. Issue No. 1 is a jurisdictional issue as it has the potential of determining the outcome of the petition, and only the petitioner submitted on the issue. 52. The decision in Annarita Karimi Njeru set a test for constitutional petitions, that the same must be pleaded with degree of reasonable precision. 53. Has the petition met this test? 54. The particulars of petition is set out at paragraphs 2 to 8 of this judgment. 55. The legal foundations of the petition being the constitution and statutory provisions alleged to have been violated were pleaded at paragraphs 6 to 30 of the petition while the factual foundation is pleaded at paragraphs 31 to 37 of the petition including the particulars of Environment pollution and degradation, particulars of trespass and particulars of breaches of law, particulars of damage and loss suffered. 56. In a nutshell as drafted the petition meets the test set out in Annarita Karimi Njeru decision in respect of constitutional petitions; and the court is satisfied that the alleged breaches were pleaded with reasonable precision to enable the Respondents and the court to know the said violations and/or infringements with ease. 57. Thus, in answer to issue No. 1, the court finds that the petition meets the threshold of Annarita Karimi Njeru. P a g e 11 | 18

page 11 of 18

58. On issue No. 2, the petitioner pleaded ownership of Transmara/Olalui/15 and exhibited ownership documents over the suit property, a copy of the title deed was exhibited as annexture SOT 1, a copy of search annexed to a valuation report equally reveals the petitioner as the proprietor of the suit property. Having proven ownership of the suit property, the petitioner is by law entitled to the proprietary interests and rights conferred upon a registered owner under Article 40 of the constitution as well as sections 24 to 26 of Land Registration Act. 59. Did the Respondents action violates the Petitioner’s rights. 60. With respect to the 1st Respondent, it was pleaded that the 1 st Respondent’s predecessor Transmara County Council without any colour of right designated a portion of the petitioner’s private property as a cemetery and a dump site. 61. The petitioner exhibited photographs showing garbage that had been littered, a signage proclaiming Kilgoris cemetery all in the said suit property. 62. The petitioner exhibited an Environmental complaint assessment and compensation report that outlines the environment degradation by way of disposal of waste in the suit property leading to air, water and land pollution as well as the report by the 2 nd Respondent NEMA dated 8th April 2021 details complaints of mismanagement of effluent and solid waste. 63. The 2nd Respondent in its Replying affidavit equally confirms that the 1st Respondent has failed to properly handle the issue of waste management and that no Environmental Impact Assessment was done with regard to the dump site and the cemetery which are on private land, belonging to the petitioner. 64. The 2nd Respondent essentially confirmed and supported the petition herein, and urged the court to close the dump site. 65. The petitioner has therefore proved violations of his constitutional rights to own property, by being arbitrary deprived of use of portions of his property by the actions of the 1 st Respondent, P a g e 12 | 18

page 12 of 18

and equal by violating the rights to a clean environment equally by the 1st Respondent, and the court finds that the 1 st Respondent violated the constitutional rights of the petitioner, right s under Article 40(3), 42, 43(1)(b)(c). 66. Equally the petitioner has proven that having previously obtained a permanent injunction against the predecessor of the 1 st Respondent, who still continues with the injurious activities, the 1 st Respondent’s action thus violated his right to the protection of law and were injurious to him. 67. The petitioner proved his petition against the 1st Respondent only, the court finds that as against the 2 nd and 3rd Respondent, the said parties did not violate the petitioner’s rights. 68. In fact, the 2nd Respondent supported the petition and noted the violations against the petitioner which it had requested the 1 st Respondent to address. While the 3 rd Respondent does not have role in the issues raised in the petition. 69. By converting portions of private land comprised in title No. Transmara/Olalui/15 for use by the public in the form of a dump site as well as a cemetery without the consent of the registered owner, the 1st Respondent has actually deprived the petitioner the right to enjoy quiet possession of his property and further the action amounts to compulsory acquisition without compensation. 70. Annexture SOT 5 in the supporting affidavit of the petitioner details the environmental degradation on the suit property caused by the actions of the first Respondent. 71. The same include foul smell emanating from the shallow and sunken graves, the disposal of asbestos on the suit land exposed air pollution to the petitioner and his family. 72. By reasons of the actions of the 1 st Respondent has lost use of about 2.9 acres being the dump site and 6 acres being the injuriously affected land as captured by the valuation report of ADOMAG Valuers and Associates. P a g e 13 | 18

page 13 of 18

73. The valuation report by the Government value that was filed pursuant to leave of the court equally identifies about 3 acres of the suit property are being utilised as a dump site and cemetery, while 6 acres have been affected by the injurious actions. 74. The court therefore finds that the actions, and/or omissions of the 1st Respondent have denied the petitioner use of 8.9 acres of his property (Transmara/Olalui/15). 75. The Replying affidavit of the 2nd Respondent details on actions the 2nd Respondent look and required the 1 st Respondent to take including a site visit report dated 08.05.2025 which observed that the waste disposal was open and not manned by any count officer. The waste was mixed with plastics glass, soil, paper. 76. No construction work. 77. Waste had been dumped by the roadside, and there was no EIA licence applied for or issued. 78. The above observations in the site visit report lends height to the observation in the annexture SOT5 above on the environmental degradation and pollution. 79. The waste disposal and management is a function of the County Governments under schedule 4 part 2 paragraph g of the Constitution of Kenya as read together with sections 5(1)(2) c of County Government Act. 80. The court finds that the 2nd Respondent having acted on the complaints about the waste disposal within Kilgoris town by requiring compliance by the 1st Respondent did not abdicate its duties and therefore the petition against it is unfounded. 81. The 3rd Respondents had no role as the issue of compulsory acquisition was not initiated by the 1st Respondent and the petition against the 3rd Respondent equally fails. 82. Having proven that the 1st Respondent is under a statutory duty to manage waste in the county and having failed to do so, the petitioner has proven constitutional violations against him by the 1st Respondent and his petition is merited. P a g e 14 | 18

page 14 of 18

83. On what reliefs ought to issue, the petitioner has sought for a number of reliefs including general and exemplary damages. 84. The petitioner has proven that 2.9 acres of the suit property have being utilised by the 1st Respondent as a dump site and a cemetery, and a further 6 acres, being 3 acres on each side have 85. been affected by the injurious activities. Hence the total acreage being 8.9 acres, the court finds that the said 8.9 acres have been compulsorily acquired by the 1st Respondent hence entitling the petitioner to compensation. The valuation report by ADOMAG Valuers places the value of the 8.9 acres at Kshs.86,918,400/=, while the Government valuation report places the value at Kshs.70,068,000/=. 86. With regard to this the court awards Kshs.77,000,000 as compensation for the 8.9 acres that it deems to have been compulsorily acquired by the 1st Respondent. 87. The court therefore declares that the 1 st Respondent compulsorily acquired a portion of Transmara/Olalui/15 measuring 8.9 acres (made up of 2.9 acres as the real cemetery and dump site, and 6 acres as the injurious affected parcels) and awards Khs.77,000,000/= as compensation to the petitioner by the 1 st Respondent. 88. The court issues an order of mandamus to compel the 1 st Respondent to pay the Khs.77,000,000 being compulsory acquisition of 8.9 acres within Transmara/Olalui/15. 89. On general damages for trespass and environmental pollution. 90. Having proven constitutional violations on the right to a hearth and clean environment as well as trespass, the court awards general damages of Khs.5,000,000/= under for trespass and general damages of 15,000,000 for environmental degradation. 91. The petitioner has sought for special damages, the law on special damages is that the same must be specifically pleaded and proved. 92. The costs of the valuation reports and environment complaint and Assessment report would have fallen under this category but the P a g e 15 | 18

page 15 of 18

same were not pleaded and hence not proved and the court declines to award special damages. 93. On exemplary damages, the petitioner submitted that the injurious actions by the 1st Respondent continued even after the High court had issued a permanent injunction to stop the said activities, in Kisii High Court Civil Suit No. 4 of 2007 that was annexed as SOT 3, and that the 1st Respondent moved from the potion of two acres that it had occupied and occupied the 2.9 acres, and that the conduct of the 1st Respondent which is berringet in nature, submits for an award of exemplary damages. 94.The Court of Appeal in its decision in the case of Nation Media Group Vs. Gideon Mose Onchwati and Kenya Oil Company Ltd 2019 (KECA) 555 KLR observed as follows, “Now, exemplary damages are awardable in very rare instances where the conduct of the defendant is deserving of punishment, and they are meant to vindicate the law. They have nothing to do with compensating the plaintiff. This court in the Nairobi Star Publication Ltd Vs. Elizabeth Atieno Oyoo (2018) eKLR addressed the issue as followsand we agree; “As regards exemplary damages the same are only to be awarded in the same are only to be awarded in Limited instances. The categories in which exemplary damages should be awarded are set out in paragraph 243 of Halsbury Laws of England as follows; (1) Oppressive, arbitrary and unconstitutional actions by servants of Government. (2) Conduct calculated by the defendant to make him a profit which may well exceed the compensation payable to the plaintiff or (3) Cases in which the payment of exemplary damages is authorised by statute.” P a g e 16 | 18

page 16 of 18

95. In light of the open defiance of permanent injunction order issued against the predecessor of the 1 st Respondent in Kisii High Court Civil Case No. 4 of 2007, the petitioner has made a case of exemplary damages which the court awards at Kshs.8,000,000/=. 96. The petitioner equally proved serious environmental degradation and pollution and the court orders restoration of the environment by the 1st Respondent at its costs. 97. In this regard the 1st Respondent shall submit to the 2nd Respondent an E.I.A report environment plan within 30 days for its approval and shall restore the environment within 6 months from the date of Judgment. 98. The Restoration plan and works once approved and undertaken to the satisfaction of the 2 nd Respondent, the 2nd Respondent shall file a report with the Deputy Registrar of this court. 99. Failure to restore the Environment within the 6 months, the Petitioner and/or 2nd Respondent shall be at liberty to commence contempt of court proceedings, against the C.E.C in-charge of Environment, Narok County, and the County Secretary of Narok County, and the dump site and shall cease to operate. Disposition 100. Accordingly, judgment is entered in favour of the Petitioner against the 1st Respondent in terms that; (i) A declaration hereby issues that the 1st Respondent has acquired 8.9 acres in Transmara/Olalui/15 by compulsory acquisition and the 1st Respondent to compensate the petitioner Kshs.77,000,000. (ii) A judicial review order of mandamus issues herein compelling the 1st Respondent to pay (a) The Kshs.77,000,000 in (i) above. (b)(i) General damages for Trespass at Kshs.5,000,000. (ii)General damages for environmental degradation at Kshs.15,000,000. P a g e 17 | 18

page 17 of 18

(iii)Exemplary damages at Kshs.8,000,000/=. (c)The 1st Respondent to restore the polluted Environment in the suit premises (measuring 8.9 acres) and submit.; (i) An E.I.A report to the 2nd Respondent within 60 days from today. (ii) Undertake restoration works to the satisfaction of the 2 nd Respondent within 6 months, and once satisfied the 2 nd Respondent to file a report with the Deputy Registrar of the court. 101. Failure to restore the Environment within 6 months the petitioner and/or 2nd Respondent be at liberty to apply for contempt of court proceedings against the C.E.C in-charge of Environment and County Secretary Narok County and the dump site or cemetery shall cease to operate. 102. The petition against the 2nd and 3rd Respondents is dismissed. 103. Costs of the petition are awarded to the petitioner. 104. Judgment accordingly. Dated at Kilgoris this 17th day of September, 2026 Hon. M.N. Mwanyale Judge In the presence of CA – Sylvia/Clara Mr. Maito for Petitioner Ms. Olalo for 3rd Respondent Ms. Kahuria for 2nd Respondent P a g e 18 | 18

page 18 of 18